• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every persons position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Civilians versus Tyranny

Unrein

Active member
Joined
Nov 10, 2008
Messages
448
Reaction score
66
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Communist
I find the "we need to be armed to stop our tyrannical government!" argument to be a bit bizarre. I assume if we had to physically overthrow the government as suggested, we as civilians would be fighting the US military? Isn't it interesting that this argument implies that it's an imperative that we as civilians be capable of physically defeating our own standing army, but the same people who make this argument also tend to argue that our standing army needs to be the most bloated, god-devouring, invincible wrecking force the universe has ever seen? What's the point of making the argument from 'stopping tyranny' if you simultaneously support making that very tyrannical thing armed to the teeth?
 

Unrein

Active member
Joined
Nov 10, 2008
Messages
448
Reaction score
66
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Communist
Also, it demonstrates the greater hypocrisy of neo-conservatists' hatred and distrust of 'the government', but indelible passion and loyalty to it at the same time.
 

RabidAlpaca

Engineer
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 4, 2012
Messages
21,375
Reaction score
27,505
Location
American Refugee in Europe
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
I find the "we need to be armed to stop our tyrannical government!" argument to be a bit bizarre. I assume if we had to physically overthrow the government as suggested, we as civilians would be fighting the US military? Isn't it interesting that this argument implies that it's an imperative that we as civilians be capable of physically defeating our own standing army, but the same people who make this argument also tend to argue that our standing army needs to be the most bloated, god-devouring, invincible wrecking force the universe has ever seen? What's the point of making the argument from 'stopping tyranny' if you simultaneously support making that very tyrannical thing armed to the teeth?
We need to be armed so that communists like you can't try to grab power then misuse that power.

Are you arguing that our democracy is so pure that it can't be corrupted? Doesn't sound like a very good argument for your ideology.
 

Spartacus FPV

Better You = Better World
DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 19, 2006
Messages
14,870
Reaction score
7,126
Location
Your Echochamber
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
I find the "we need to be armed to stop our tyrannical government!" argument to be a bit bizarre. I assume if we had to physically overthrow the government as suggested, we as civilians would be fighting the US military? Isn't it interesting that this argument implies that it's an imperative that we as civilians be capable of physically defeating our own standing army, but the same people who make this argument also tend to argue that our standing army needs to be the most bloated, god-devouring, invincible wrecking force the universe has ever seen? What's the point of making the argument from 'stopping tyranny' if you simultaneously support making that very tyrannical thing armed to the teeth?
Are you familiar with the oathkeepers? Do you believe every servicemen will follow the orders of a despot? How long could a bloated force finance itself when attacking the very people who finance them? How effective have they been against insurgents in Afghanistan? Are you familiar with the term "Guerrilla Warfare"?

Also, it demonstrates the greater hypocrisy of neo-conservatists' hatred and distrust of 'the government', but indelible passion and loyalty to it at the same time.
Don't mistake loyalty to the constitution or the nation with loyalty to their government. If the Government ever claims that the constitution that authorizes them no longer matters, then they are no longer the Government, I wouldn't owe them a penny or a second of my time and could rightly regard them no differently than any other armed looter.

"I swore an oath. To defend the articles. The articles say there is an election in seven months. Now, if you are telling me we are throwing out the law, then I am not a captain, you are not a commander, and you are not the president. And I don't owe either of you a damned explanation for anything." - Apollo, BSG
 
Last edited:

Unrein

Active member
Joined
Nov 10, 2008
Messages
448
Reaction score
66
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Communist
We need to be armed so that communists like you can't try to grab power then misuse that power.
What does that mean precisely? "grab power"? Is it a physical object? Is the leader of the free-world literally just whoever possesses Gyges Ring? What would happen if I, as an evil commie, were to right now grab this 'power' you speak of?

Are you arguing that our democracy is so pure that it can't be corrupted?
It certainly can be corrupted, but the only corruption that actually persists in a democracy would be complacency, so for an armed revolution against the corrupt democracy to occur there would have to be an overwhelming lack of complacency anyway making the whole idea moot.
 

Spartacus FPV

Better You = Better World
DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 19, 2006
Messages
14,870
Reaction score
7,126
Location
Your Echochamber
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
What does that mean precisely? "grab power"? Is it a physical object? Is the leader of the free-world literally just whoever possesses Gyges Ring? What would happen if I, as an evil commie, were to right now grab this 'power' you speak of?

It certainly can be corrupted, but the only corruption that actually persists in a democracy would be complacency, so for an armed revolution against the corrupt democracy to occur there would have to be an overwhelming lack of complacency anyway making the whole idea moot.
:lamo

False premise.
 

Unrein

Active member
Joined
Nov 10, 2008
Messages
448
Reaction score
66
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Communist
:lamo

False premise.
How so?

And could I request a response to the first half, on the off chance you intended to ignore it?
 

Spartacus FPV

Better You = Better World
DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 19, 2006
Messages
14,870
Reaction score
7,126
Location
Your Echochamber
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
Given every other example of corruption that persists in our democracy, each one proves your absolute statement false.

I don't even regard complacency as corruption, complacency has got nothing on every ne'er do well cousin of a politician granted a no bid contract.

And could I request a response to the first half, on the off chance you intended to ignore it?
To this? "What would happen if I, as an evil commie, were to right now grab this 'power' you speak of?"

I would expect my apathetic countrymen to embrace tyranny over actually risking their fat asses and cushy lives in revolution.
 
Last edited:

Unrein

Active member
Joined
Nov 10, 2008
Messages
448
Reaction score
66
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Communist
Are you familiar with the oathkeepers? Do you believe every servicemen will follow the orders of a despot? How long could a bloated force finance itself when attacking the very people who finance them? How effective have they been against insurgents in Afghanistan? Are you familiar with the term "Guerrilla Warfare"?
Isn't it obvious how you've subverted you're argument all the same then? If the US military would never fight the American people, then who is left to conquer in order to vanquish this supposed tyranny? A group of old people on capital hill? Even if they were all personally armed with machine guns, the state of Wyoming alone could overtake them with table forks. So I don't see where the necessity to be armed in order to prevent or stop tyranny comes in.
 

Unrein

Active member
Joined
Nov 10, 2008
Messages
448
Reaction score
66
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Communist
Given every other example of corruption that persists in our democracy, each one proves your absolute statement false.
Name one.
 

Spartacus FPV

Better You = Better World
DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 19, 2006
Messages
14,870
Reaction score
7,126
Location
Your Echochamber
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
Isn't it obvious how you've subverted you're argument all the same then? If the US military would never fight the American people, then who is left to conquer in order to vanquish this supposed tyranny? A group of old people on capital hill? Even if they were all personally armed with machine guns, the state of Wyoming alone could overtake them with table forks. So I don't see where the necessity to be armed in order to prevent or stop tyranny comes in.
False premise that I never said. My position is that some (oathkeepers) will not follow orders, and some will.

You underestimate the power old men can wield, war is always old men talking and young men dying. Also it is clear that there is much you do not see.

Name one.
I did in my edit.

"every ne'er do well cousin of a politician granted a no bid contract."
 

Unrein

Active member
Joined
Nov 10, 2008
Messages
448
Reaction score
66
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Communist
complacency has got nothing on every ne'er do well cousin of a politician granted a no bid contract.
Ok I'll take that this is supposed to be an example. Let's call it nepotism. It's a direct consequence of complacency since if we all noticed and actually cared, we only need to vote to change the laws that allow them to do it in the first place.

I would expect my apathetic countrymen to embrace tyranny over actually risking their fat asses and cushy lives in revolution.
So you need *not to be armed then I take it as you seem to be implying it would be futile?
 
Last edited:

Unrein

Active member
Joined
Nov 10, 2008
Messages
448
Reaction score
66
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Communist
False premise that I never said. My position is that some (oathkeepers) will not follow orders, and some will.
So would an anti-tyrannical uprising be civil war taking place almost entirely within or between people in the military? The 'oathkeepers versus the non-oathkeepers?
 

Spartacus FPV

Better You = Better World
DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 19, 2006
Messages
14,870
Reaction score
7,126
Location
Your Echochamber
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
Ok I'll take that this is supposed to be an example. Let's call it nepotism. It's a direct consequence of complacency since if we all noticed and actually cared, we only need to vote to change the laws that allow them to do it in the first place.
I am skeptical that we can pass laws that will eliminate corruption.

So you need to be armed then I take it as you seem to be implying it would be futile?
I don't "need to be armed" I want to be. I don't have guns to fight tyranny, despite it being the primary purpose of the 2nd Amendment. I have them for sport shooting and self defense.

I don't know that a modern revolution against a tyrannical version of the US government would be futile, but I do believe the % of loyalists would be far more than the 15-20% of the 1st American Revolutionary War.

So would an anti-tyrannical uprising be civil war taking place almost entirely within or between people in the military? The 'oathkeepers versus the non-oathkeepers?
Nope, veterans and civilian patriots too as well as civilian loyalists at the very least ratting out their revolutionary countrymen. Most people however will want to stay out of it until it hits their doorstep. This is all pure speculation of course.
 
Last edited:

Unrein

Active member
Joined
Nov 10, 2008
Messages
448
Reaction score
66
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Communist
I am skeptical that we can pass laws that will eliminate corruption.
We can pass laws doing whatever we want basically, the only thing that would stop us is our own complacency/apathy.
 

DDD

DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 26, 2012
Messages
12,351
Reaction score
1,918
Location
Republic of Dardania
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
To this? "What would happen if I, as an evil commie, were to right now grab this 'power' you speak of?"

I would expect my apathetic countrymen to embrace tyranny over actually risking their fat asses and cushy lives in revolution.
Do you think that is why the government overfeeds its population there with fat?
 

Spartacus FPV

Better You = Better World
DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 19, 2006
Messages
14,870
Reaction score
7,126
Location
Your Echochamber
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
Do you think that is why the government overfeeds its population there with fat?
I don't believe the government feeds people, let alone overfeeds them. Food stamps can be spent on vegetables. As for our USDA standards, Monsanto protections acts and the like I'd blame nepotism, cheap substitutes and lobbyists before I would any conspiracy to fatten us up so we can't resist.

Our cushy lives aren't so that we wouldn't fight, the miracle that was our economy gave us said lives, but I do believe that the only way to control someone who has nothing to lose is to give him something.
 

DDD

DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 26, 2012
Messages
12,351
Reaction score
1,918
Location
Republic of Dardania
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
I don't believe the government feeds people, let alone overfeeds them. Food stamps can be spent on vegetables. As for our USDA standards, Monsanto protections acts and the like I'd blame nepotism, cheap substitutes and lobbyists before I would any conspiracy to fatten us up so we can't resist.

Our cushy lives aren't so that we wouldn't fight, the miracle that was our economy gave us said lives, but I do believe that the only way to control someone who has nothing to lose is to give him something.
So then if you try to resist tyranny the government would take McDonalds away from you?
 

HumanBeing

Well-known member
Joined
May 13, 2013
Messages
761
Reaction score
358
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
we only need to vote to change the laws that allow them to do it in the first place.
I don't get it. You intend to get rid of tyrannical, corrupt governments by voting? I'm not sure you've quite grasped the meaning of tyranny and corruption.
 

jamesrage

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 31, 2005
Messages
34,507
Reaction score
16,299
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Conservative
Ok I'll take that this is supposed to be an example. Let's call it nepotism. It's a direct consequence of complacency since if we all noticed and actually cared, we only need to vote to change the laws that allow them to do it in the first place.



So you need *not to be armed then I take it as you seem to be implying it would be futile?
I don't think you understand what a tyrannical government is. Plus in a country with 10% congressional approval and a 90% incumbent reelection rate the idea that the people will simply vote out bad politicians is ludicrous.

http://ivn.us/2012/08/15/congress-approval-rating-10-percent-all-time-low/
 
Last edited:

jamesrage

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 31, 2005
Messages
34,507
Reaction score
16,299
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Conservative
I find the "we need to be armed to stop our tyrannical government!" argument to be a bit bizarre. I assume if we had to physically overthrow the government as suggested, we as civilians would be fighting the US military?
If the people were to overthrow the government then they would cut off roads,cut off fuel, and cut off supplies to cripple the military as much as possible.The people would go after politicians.The people would fight law enforcement and troops against their cause. In a country where citizens have over 310 million firearms in the hands of 70-80 million plus gun owners a fire fight with the troops and law enforcement would not be that hard.

Isn't it interesting that this argument implies that it's an imperative that we as civilians be capable of physically defeating our own standing army, but the same people who make this argument also tend to argue that our standing army needs to be the most bloated, god-devouring, invincible wrecking force the universe has ever seen?
What's the point of making the argument from 'stopping tyranny' if you simultaneously support making that very tyrannical thing armed to the teeth?
I have not claimed that our military needs to be the most bloated, god-devouring, invincible wrecking force the universe has ever seen. Advocating for a strong military does not contradict the peoples right to have the ability to defend against and or remove a tyrannical government. Tanks,bombs and planes have their limitations and can be exploited. Contrary to popular belief not every marine and soldier is a trained infantry soldier,as a matter of fact most troops are just support.
 

RabidAlpaca

Engineer
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 4, 2012
Messages
21,375
Reaction score
27,505
Location
American Refugee in Europe
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
What does that mean precisely? "grab power"? Is it a physical object? Is the leader of the free-world literally just whoever possesses Gyges Ring? What would happen if I, as an evil commie, were to right now grab this 'power' you speak of?
For the answer to that, you should study the history of the atrocities of government against their people. As far as what you would do as a commie, we can probably extrapolate that pretty well from the examples we've been given.

It certainly can be corrupted, but the only corruption that actually persists in a democracy would be complacency, so for an armed revolution against the corrupt democracy to occur there would have to be an overwhelming lack of complacency anyway making the whole idea moot.
This is actually correct. Complacency is one of the biggest problems in democracy. That's why people who keep themselves armed and continually distrust the government prevent themselves from becoming complacent, and keep our liberties protected.
 

Blue_State

DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 30, 2011
Messages
5,323
Reaction score
2,180
Location
In a Blue State
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Liberal
I find the "we need to be armed to stop our tyrannical government!" argument to be a bit bizarre. I assume if we had to physically overthrow the government as suggested, we as civilians would be fighting the US military? Isn't it interesting that this argument implies that it's an imperative that we as civilians be capable of physically defeating our own standing army, but the same people who make this argument also tend to argue that our standing army needs to be the most bloated, god-devouring, invincible wrecking force the universe has ever seen? What's the point of making the argument from 'stopping tyranny' if you simultaneously support making that very tyrannical thing armed to the teeth?
The we need to be armed was more specific to when we did not have a standing Army. Since WWI it has become commonplace for us to have a Standing Army. It was not the original intent for us to maintain the Army we have and a armed citizenry would have more power. But because there is a standing military, a armed citizenry is far more important. I am in favor of returning our military to our borders. I am in favor of downsizing our military. I am also in favor of limiting our use of force in other nations. I am firmly in favor of a armed citizenry.
 

Texmex

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 10, 2011
Messages
5,189
Reaction score
1,932
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Liberal
I find the "we need to be armed to stop our tyrannical government!" argument to be a bit bizarre. I assume if we had to physically overthrow the government as suggested, we as civilians would be fighting the US military? Isn't it interesting that this argument implies that it's an imperative that we as civilians be capable of physically defeating our own standing army, but the same people who make this argument also tend to argue that our standing army needs to be the most bloated, god-devouring, invincible wrecking force the universe has ever seen? What's the point of making the argument from 'stopping tyranny' if you simultaneously support making that very tyrannical thing armed to the teeth?
I believe this is a false dichotomy. Just because someone is in favor of exercising their constitutional right to keep and bear arms in order to protect against tyranny doesn't mean they are in favor of a bloated military. After all, the military is made up of mostly people who are like-minded. They also are in favor of following the Constitution.

In fact, should a showdown develop, it will be mostly the military who will fight for freedom, and against tyranny, or at least most of them will, I presume. I base this on the fact that the people I know who have served, and who now serve cherish and honor the Constitution as I do.
 

CRUE CAB

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 21, 2013
Messages
16,763
Reaction score
4,343
Location
Melbourne Florida
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
I find the "we need to be armed to stop our tyrannical government!" argument to be a bit bizarre. I assume if we had to physically overthrow the government as suggested, we as civilians would be fighting the US military? Isn't it interesting that this argument implies that it's an imperative that we as civilians be capable of physically defeating our own standing army, but the same people who make this argument also tend to argue that our standing army needs to be the most bloated, god-devouring, invincible wrecking force the universe has ever seen? What's the point of making the argument from 'stopping tyranny' if you simultaneously support making that very tyrannical thing armed to the teeth?
So you dont think a large enough group of citizens could take on the US military?
Funny, it gets debated on every forum I am on.
First, look how well the rag tag afgans are doing against our superior force. We loose men almost weekly.
Second, you would have to take into account the defections from said standing army to the "rebel" side. Most in the military are not ready and willing to turn their weapons on US citizens just yet.
Third, the US population is very well armed. And with millions of older and recent returning vets, a force of their own.
Now, chances of anything even close to a "battle" between forces of our military and groups of civilians are about a million to one. Although it can and has happened.
Am I prepared for it? Pretty close. Nothing like sitting on a few thousand rounds of ss109 5.56 ammo, over a thousand rounds of 7.62 and a few thousand rounds of hand gun ammo.
 
Top Bottom