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.
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.
Over here when assessing your societies inbult predjudicies its simply considered true :wink:
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?
Isn't it against the law to commit suicide?We have to make the penalties for committing suicide, more severe, in order to cut down on those numbers
:roll:
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.
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.
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.
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.
Isn't it against the law to commit suicide?
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.
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.
It is a capital sentence in some jurisdictions, i you are successful :mrgreen:
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.
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?
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?