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 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?
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.
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?
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.
How so?
And could I request a response to the first half, on the off chance you intended to ignore it?
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"?
Given every other example of corruption that persists in our democracy, each one proves your absolute statement false.
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.
Name one.
complacency has got nothing on every ne'er do well cousin of a politician granted a no bid contract.
I would expect my apathetic countrymen to embrace tyranny over actually risking their fat asses and cushy lives in revolution.
False premise that I never said. My position is that some (oathkeepers) will not follow orders, and some will.
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 to be armed then I take it as you seem to be implying it would be futile?
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?
I am skeptical that we can pass laws that will eliminate corruption.
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?
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.
we only need to vote to change the laws that allow them to do it in the first place.
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.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 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?
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.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?
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.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?
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.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.
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 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?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 use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?