Minority Rights

[TurtleDude]

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.

tell us how background checks stop intentional murder with firearms.

 

[Michael McMahon]

I imagine any small improvement in gun control in America would be progress.

Also, I really do think though that proportioning the military would help avoid the threat of tyranny as any tyrannical government would obviously have to be supported by the army.

 

[Michael McMahon]

Proportioning the army might alleviate conflict in areas of ethnic tension and in disputed areas as all groups would feel represented in the military and so in the state.

 

[Waddy]

Mao said power comes from the muzzle of a gun. He was correct. That's why we need an armed citizenry.

 

[TurtleDude]

Mao said power comes from the muzzle of a gun. He was correct. That's why we need an armed citizenry.

It is no surprise that the political movement that seeks more and more governmental power, is the same movement that wants to disarm the citizenry.

 

[Waddy]

It is no surprise that the political movement that seeks more and more governmental power, is the same movement that wants to disarm the citizenry.

You see that connection, too? Democratic big government doesn't make the power grab all at once, it does it a little at a time. Death by a thousand cuts. And the next generation doesn't even miss their lost freedoms; they never had them in their life time anyways. All of our freedoms are under siege; free speech, privacy, self defense; the list could go on and on. They are trying to mould us into an obedient cookie cutter version of a compliant citizenry. Under their ever watchful eyes.

 

[TurtleDude]

You see that connection, too? Democratic big government doesn't make the power grab all at once, it does it a little at a time. Death by a thousand cuts. And the next generation doesn't even miss their lost freedoms; they never had them in their life time anyways. All of our freedoms are under siege; free speech, privacy, self defense; the list could go on and on. They are trying to mould us into an obedient cookie cutter version of a compliant citizenry. Under their ever watchful eyes.

for years we have been talking about the frog in the frying pan analogy.

 

[Michael McMahon]

A political majority in one country is often a minority in another country. So overall, proportional representation of the military would be a neutral and fair position.

 

[Michael McMahon]

Another point would be that citizens could freely join the army reserve instead of them all bearing arms in public.

 

[Michael McMahon]

Tyranny is more likely to happen when only 51% of the vote grants you complete 100% control of the military.

Even if minorities are in the army, they are outnumbered in every military base. This makes them ineffective in deterring a potential tyrant. It would be hard for them to defect and they would be mistaken for the enemy by fellow minority members due to the uniform they've on. Ideally minorities would have their own military bases, their own uniforms, their own recruitment procedures and a section of the military budget in proportion to the democratic mandate that they have received.

 

[Michael McMahon]

How a military overhaul in Venezuela keeps troops standing by Maduro

 

[Michael McMahon]

I find the idea of decentralising the army to be interesting. The following is an extract from the Mises Institute:

"Why Military Decentralization is Important

Modern opponents of gun control often claim the need for private ownership of guns as a balance against state military power. Yet, these same people will often also support a powerful, centrally-controlled national military. These two positions are directly at odds with each other.

Moreover, it is not a terribly convincing claim that unorganized and untrained private gun owners by themselves could offer anything other than token resistance to federal military forces as they currently exist. While private firearms ownership does have value in this respect, its value pales in comparison to the need for a means of decentralizing federal military forces and providing a way for local institutions to deny federal institutions access to state military forces. If gun control opponents were serious about limiting military power, they would advocate for a radical change to the balance of military power in the United States with an eye toward creating a federal dependence on state-controlled militaries that can only be deployed with the consent of state governments."

 

[RaleBulgarian]

Mao said power comes from the muzzle of a gun. He was correct. That's why we need an armed citizenry.

Quoting the words of a dictator responsible for 10’s of millions of murders, as support for your POV, is ****ed up.

 

[RaleBulgarian]

It is no surprise that the political movement that seeks more and more governmental power, is the same movement that wants to disarm the citizenry.

Got evidence of the above?

 

[TurtleDude]

Got evidence of the above?

yeah-every gun banning politician is invariably a big government leftist. And it is big government leftists who push gun bans. You ever meet a libertarian who wants gun bans? or someone who supports "states Rights" wanting gun bans?

 

[RaleBulgarian]

yeah-every gun banning politician is invariably a big government leftist. And it is big government leftists who push gun bans. You ever meet a libertarian who wants gun bans? or someone who supports "states Rights" wanting gun bans?

Uh-huh.

Again, where’s the evidence to support your claim?

 

[VanceMack]

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.

The Constitution is the safeguard against tyranny. There is no mechanism whereby a tyrant... a tyrannical leader can seize power of the military. Our military structure is bound by rule of law. Our bases are spread throughout the country and as powerful as our military might is, even our military installations are dependent on the states that host them.

Our armed citizenry can very well stand against an oppressive local force...but again...those forces are bound by Constitution and law. Where an armed force may come to bear might be in an instance of civil disobedience. If you go back to the 99% protests, there really wasnt much of a threat...but like all potentially explosive situations, all it takes is a match for there to be chaos.

If we ever get to a situation of gravest extreme, we wont be fighting our military. We wont be fighting our law enforcement.

 

[TurtleDude]

Uh-huh.

Again, where’s the evidence to support your claim?

are you trying to derail a point you don't like.

The tax and spend party is the gun banning party. The people who want the government to have more control over private property are the gun banners. I realize it is tough to claim you support gun rights while voting for the party of Beta O'Rourke, Warren, Biden and Sanders but everyone of the Democrats who have even a remote chance of being nominated want to ban millions upon millions of firearms

 

[Michael McMahon]

Perhaps by giving a greater voice to minorities and opposition parties in the selection of military generals or even having elections for army general positions might reduce some people's fear of a tyranny.

 

[RaleBulgarian]

are you trying to derail a point you don't like.

No, I’m asking you to support your misleading assertion.

It is no surprise that the political movement that seeks more and more governmental power, is the same movement that wants to disarm the citizenry.

Perhaps by giving a greater voice to minorities and opposition parties in the selection of military generals or even having elections for army general positions might reduce some people's fear of a tyranny.

Members of both major parties do have a voice in the selection/promotion of flag officers (O7-O10). A flag officer board makes recommendations to the President, who then nominates individuals to the Senate for confirmation.

And as our military has always been, and continues to be an apolitical arm of our federal government, any (irrational) concerns of potential “tyranny” by our military are completely unfounded.

 

[Napoleon]

The Constitution is the safeguard against tyranny. There is no mechanism whereby a tyrant... a tyrannical leader can seize power of the military. Our military structure is bound by rule of law. Our bases are spread throughout the country and as powerful as our military might is, even our military installations are dependent on the states that host them.

Our armed citizenry can very well stand against an oppressive local force...but again...those forces are bound by Constitution and law. Where an armed force may come to bear might be in an instance of civil disobedience. If you go back to the 99% protests, there really wasnt much of a threat...but like all potentially explosive situations, all it takes is a match for there to be chaos.

If we ever get to a situation of gravest extreme, we wont be fighting our military. We wont be fighting our law enforcement.

Washington spent the better part of his presidency stamping out armed rebellion. And we did have this thing called the Civil War. I wouldn’t bet my life on the idea that the military would do nothing in the face of armed insurrection.

 

[VanceMack]

Washington spent the better part of his presidency stamping out armed rebellion. And we did have this thing called the Civil War. I wouldn’t bet my life on the idea that the military would do nothing in the face of armed insurrection.

My point would be that it is highly unlikely you will see an armed insurrection, and certainly not as the OP suggested an insurrection mounted by the military.

Dont get me wrong...120 million armed citizens does make a formidable force. And hey...the news media was convinced that a bunch of good ol boys in Kentucky grinding out a tiny amount of stored ammo was the war fighting might of Turkish army bringing force to bear against the Kurds...so obviously someone thinks 'we the people' are capable.

 

[danielpalos]

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 have a Second Amendment and should have no security problems in our free States. Our legislators are simply slacking.

 

[Waddy]

Quoting the words of a dictator responsible for 10’s of millions of murders, as support for your POV, is ****ed up.

Not as ****** up as ignoring the truth in his statement. Besides, "power comes from the barrel of a gun" (Mao) is one of the most famous quotes in history. What do you think is behind the power of even a democracy like the United States? Clue; It ain't the people.

 

[RaleBulgarian]

Not as ****** up as ignoring the truth in his statement. Besides, "power comes from the barrel of a gun" (Mao) is one of the most famous quotes in history. What do you think is behind the power of even a democracy like the United States? Clue; It ain't the people.

The “truthfulness” and fame of Mao’s comment are entirely debatable.

Taken in context of the current conversation though, the assertion is as valid as the notion of our government turning it’s forces against the civilian population.