• 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!

Minority Rights

Maccabee

DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 7, 2016
Messages
5,222
Reaction score
1,249
Location
Florida.
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Moderate
Another safeguard against tyranny would be to allow minority groups to wear a different uniform in the army. The uniform alerts others as to whose side they're on. It's not legalising defection but merely a precaution. In fact seperate uniforms are probably legal under free speech.

Wait, what on earth are you talking about? how would different uniforms do that?
 

lwf

DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 15, 2018
Messages
10,839
Reaction score
6,106
Location
PNW
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Debaters often cite the black market. But search warrants could help hinder the black market. Besides, a lot of the black market consists of stolen guns that were once legally held.

There's gunrunning but that can be intercepted by the military.

Because this is working so well with drugs?
 

Napoleon

DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 15, 2012
Messages
13,646
Reaction score
4,828
Location
Columbus, OH
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Moderate
Safeguard against tyranny? Unfortunately gun rights advocates are laboring under the delusion that Joe Nobody will one day spring from his lazy boy in a shower of empty beer cans and grab his gun to save us all from the tyranny of a government that could kill any one of us from anywhere in the world. This isn’t the 18th century. There is no defense against such a government.
 
Joined
Apr 6, 2019
Messages
182
Reaction score
8
Location
Ireland
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Centrist
Hi. In terms of the uniform I suppose in any war what determines who shoots at who is the uniform that they're wearing. Unless you're a spy, soldiers will wear their own side's uniform to avoid friendly fire. I'm certainly not saying it's a cure-all but perhaps it might make defection a bit easier if needed.
 
Joined
Apr 6, 2019
Messages
182
Reaction score
8
Location
Ireland
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Centrist
In terms of the drugs analogy I think the problem is very different. It's a lot harder to make guns. Ghost guns and improvised homemade guns are quite rare and, I imagine, very difficult to make. I don't think impure gunpowder works compared to the extent of impure illegal drugs.
 

American

Bier Meister
Bartender
Supporting Member
Monthly Subscriber
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 11, 2006
Messages
89,616
Reaction score
28,477
Location
SE Virginia
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Communist
Over here when assessing your societies inbult predjudicies its simply considered true :wink:

Your country created all these prejudices.
 

TheGoverness

Little Miss Sunshine
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 29, 2016
Messages
35,043
Reaction score
37,630
Location
Houston Area, TX
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Slightly Liberal
Hi my name is Michael McMahon. A common argument against gun control is the threat of a tyrannical government. But is there any other defensive countermeasure?

The problem with having freely available guns without any background check is that armed civilians cannot protect themselves against snipers. With any gun such as a handgun or a shotgun it's possible to ambush a person and attack from behind or shoot from a concealed position. Unless one intends to spend the day darting to cover around every corner with a binoculars I fail to see how they can defend themselves. We literally don't have eyes on the back of our heads to guard against any sneaky assassin.

I was thinking one way to defend against a murderous government would be to use a military version of proportional representation. So, if a parliamentary party has 30% of the vote they'd have complete 30% control of the military. If another party has 60% of the vote they'd then be granted 60% command of the military with their own autonomous military bases and units. And so on. This would give minorities a better organisational and logistical capacity to deter or defect and thwart a tyranny.

Obviously hate speech laws can be used to prevent any violent and extremist candidate or group from running for office to prevent them gaining military representation.

What would you think of this idea?

giphy.gif
 

American

Bier Meister
Bartender
Supporting Member
Monthly Subscriber
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 11, 2006
Messages
89,616
Reaction score
28,477
Location
SE Virginia
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Communist
We have to make the penalties for committing suicide, more severe, in order to cut down on those numbers








:roll:
Isn't it against the law to commit suicide?
 
Joined
Apr 6, 2019
Messages
182
Reaction score
8
Location
Ireland
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Centrist
Another problem is how armed civilians could withstand indirect fire from artillery and aerial bombardments without huge casualties if they were taking on a tyranny.
 

jimbo

DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 30, 2011
Messages
19,056
Reaction score
6,735
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
flogger I don't know what your problem is but we have enough as it is. Now across The Big Water that may be considered funny
here it's considered rude.

Not just rude, but stupid and uninformed.
 

jimbo

DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 30, 2011
Messages
19,056
Reaction score
6,735
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
Hi again.

One problem with using guns against opportunistic crimes is that some criminals are very psychopathic. So the criminal won't take any chances and opt to shoot first. This could turn robberies into armed robberies. Of course the other problem is that of proportionality in shooting at unarmed criminals.

In terms of tyranny I suppose no one can tell how the future will unfold in different countries.

More likely, if the criminal has reason to believe you can take care of yourself, he will search for a softer target. If he doesn't, he may not get the chance to shoot first.

IMO any robbery of person is an armed robbery. Armed does not necessarily mean carrying a firearm. It means capable of inflicting bodily harm. I would act accordingly.
 

lwf

DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 15, 2018
Messages
10,839
Reaction score
6,106
Location
PNW
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
In terms of the drugs analogy I think the problem is very different. It's a lot harder to make guns. Ghost guns and improvised homemade guns are quite rare and, I imagine, very difficult to make. I don't think impure gunpowder works compared to the extent of impure illegal drugs.

The U.S. is not the only country with permissive gun laws. Gun manufacturing companies could simply move to another country and this would create a huge black market in the U.S. and smuggling opportunities would skyrocket. Not to mention the huge difference in how those who would be enforcing the law view gun ownership vs. drug use. Gun ownership would be overlooked in many cases, and the consequences would likely be less severe in cases where they are enforced.
 

lwf

DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 15, 2018
Messages
10,839
Reaction score
6,106
Location
PNW
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Another problem is how armed civilians could withstand indirect fire from artillery and aerial bombardments without huge casualties if they were taking on a tyranny.

Where would such a government find American servicemen who are willing to fire artillery and perform aerial bombardments against American civilians on American soil?
 

Felis Leo

Moral clarity is needed
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 27, 2018
Messages
8,605
Reaction score
8,947
Location
California
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
Where would such a government find American servicemen who are willing to fire artillery and perform aerial bombardments against American civilians on American soil?

Where did the Federal government find agents who were willing to fire upon and kill the extremist religious lawbreakers (who were nonetheless civilians) at the Branch Davidian compound at Waco, Texas? If they are told that the people being shot upon are un-American extremist traitors, and that the civilians aiding them are aiding and abetting extremist traitors, I imagine they could be convinced to shoot them.
 
Joined
Apr 6, 2019
Messages
182
Reaction score
8
Location
Ireland
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Centrist
Hi Jimbo. I agree that self-defence is very important. But I remember reading Sam Harris once and he commented how there's no modern equivalent to a shield like there was against close-combat weapons. Ballistic body armour is only partially effective at best. I suppose it's a bit like the conversation in nuclear weapons about first-strike capability concerning the ability to defend from an ambush. If body armour was lightweight and completely effective you might have some chance but unfortunately that isn't the case.
 

lwf

DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 15, 2018
Messages
10,839
Reaction score
6,106
Location
PNW
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Where did the Federal government find agents who were willing to fire upon and kill the extremist religious lawbreakers (who were nonetheless civilians) at the Branch Davidian compound at Waco, Texas? If they are told that the people being shot upon are un-American extremist traitors, and that the civilians aiding them are aiding and abetting extremist traitors, I imagine they could be convinced to shoot them.

Isolated instances of law enforcement are different from a tyrannical takeover of the country by a non democratic government. I could be wrong, but my gut tells me that the vast majority of American servicemen don't sign up to enforce laws that eliminate democracy in America.
 

Felis Leo

Moral clarity is needed
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 27, 2018
Messages
8,605
Reaction score
8,947
Location
California
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
Isolated instances of law enforcement are different from a tyrannical takeover of the country by a non democratic government. I could be wrong, but my gut tells me that the vast majority of American servicemen don't sign up to enforce laws that eliminate democracy in America.

I do not imagine any servicemen or women sign up to their armed forces with the specific intent of murdering their fellow countrymen. Even in countries ruled over by tyrannical regimes.
 

lwf

DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 15, 2018
Messages
10,839
Reaction score
6,106
Location
PNW
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
I do not imagine any servicemen or women sign up to their armed forces with the specific intent of murdering their fellow countrymen. Even in countries ruled over by tyrannical regimes.

Maybe not. I like to think American service members and potential service members are exceptional in this regard thanks to the remarkable freedoms they were raised under. I could be wrong. I hope you're wrong.
 
Joined
Apr 6, 2019
Messages
182
Reaction score
8
Location
Ireland
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Centrist
In regards to enforcement of any gun laws there would obviously need to be a democratic mandate in order to avoid widespread non-compliance. Yes, a few other countries do have permissive gun laws but all one would need to do is to selectively monitor and check trade and imports from such places. We'll have to ensure there's no rifles snuck in with Swiss cheese!
 

American

Bier Meister
Bartender
Supporting Member
Monthly Subscriber
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 11, 2006
Messages
89,616
Reaction score
28,477
Location
SE Virginia
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Communist

American

Bier Meister
Bartender
Supporting Member
Monthly Subscriber
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 11, 2006
Messages
89,616
Reaction score
28,477
Location
SE Virginia
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Communist
Where did the Federal government find agents who were willing to fire upon and kill the extremist religious lawbreakers (who were nonetheless civilians) at the Branch Davidian compound at Waco, Texas? If they are told that the people being shot upon are un-American extremist traitors, and that the civilians aiding them are aiding and abetting extremist traitors, I imagine they could be convinced to shoot them.

Call Janet Reno.
 
Joined
Apr 6, 2019
Messages
182
Reaction score
8
Location
Ireland
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Centrist
I agree with the right of proportionate self defence. But with legalised guns, technically any sudden movements at all within a 1 mile radius could be a potential sniper. One could easily shoot anyone within this area and then legally claim they were a potential threat or sniper. It will inevitably lead to paranoia. This shows the absurdity of the mass legalisation of guns without background checks.
 

RaleBulgarian

DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 20, 2018
Messages
21,378
Reaction score
9,413
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Hi my name is Michael McMahon. A common argument against gun control is the threat of a tyrannical government. But is there any other defensive countermeasure?

The problem with having freely available guns without any background check is that armed civilians cannot protect themselves against snipers. With any gun such as a handgun or a shotgun it's possible to ambush a person and attack from behind or shoot from a concealed position. Unless one intends to spend the day darting to cover around every corner with a binoculars I fail to see how they can defend themselves. We literally don't have eyes on the back of our heads to guard against any sneaky assassin.

I was thinking one way to defend against a murderous government would be to use a military version of proportional representation. So, if a parliamentary party has 30% of the vote they'd have complete 30% control of the military. If another party has 60% of the vote they'd then be granted 60% command of the military with their own autonomous military bases and units. And so on. This would give minorities a better organisational and logistical capacity to deter or defect and thwart a tyranny.

Obviously hate speech laws can be used to prevent any violent and extremist candidate or group from running for office to prevent them gaining military representation.

What would you think of this idea?

Bwahahahaha! :lamo
 
Top Bottom