• Please keep all posts on the Rittenhouse verdict here: Rittenhouse Verdict. Note the moderator warnings in the thread. The thread will be heavily moderated with a zero tolerance policy for any baiting, flaming, trolling or other rule breaks. Stick to the topic and not the other posters. Thank you.
  • This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's 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!

The 2nd amendment is to protect against tyranny! This is why you should fear..

ARCHITEKT

New member
Joined
Jun 22, 2013
Messages
14
Reaction score
2
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Libertarian
Governments have an innate oppressive nature and people need a last defense against despotism in case all other avenues are exhausted. We are closer to despotism then many realize and its all explained here FEAR GOVERNMENT! - YouTube watch and discuss!
 

Guy Incognito

DP Veteran
Joined
May 14, 2010
Messages
11,216
Reaction score
2,846
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
Governments have an innate oppressive nature and people need a last defense against despotism in case all other avenues are exhausted. We are closer to despotism then many realize and its all explained here FEAR GOVERNMENT! - YouTube watch and discuss!

You're right, the second amendment was to protect the several states from a tyrannical federal government. Things sure have changed.

But you're wrong about one thing. The government is nothing to fear. As former Libertarian presidential candidate, the late, great Harry Browne once said, you have no need to fear a government camera in every room because the odds are the camera won't work!
 

ARCHITEKT

New member
Joined
Jun 22, 2013
Messages
14
Reaction score
2
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Libertarian
yea lol i see the humor. dont forget government has a monopoly on force!
 

Federalist

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 26, 2012
Messages
8,247
Reaction score
2,713
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Independent
Governments have an innate oppressive nature...

Yes, that's what government IS. It is that group of individuals to whom the rest of society gives a free pass. Although we mundanes would be considered malfeasors for initiating aggression, those in government are not held to the same ethical standards.

So, for example, what would be considered extortion when done by one of us mundanes, that would be called "taxes" when done by an individual in the government. The whole thing makes no sense, but religions typically have no logical basis. They are bases upon faith, and the religion of statism is no different...
 

Paschendale

Uncanny
DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 3, 2010
Messages
12,510
Reaction score
12,604
Location
New York City
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Socialist
Why exactly is legal sanction required for the tools of an illegal revolution? Not passing judgment on such a revolution by calling it illegal, but all revolutions are illegal, especially if they lose. Assuming that a government would safeguard the means of its own destruction is a really bizarre notion.
 

Black Dog

King Of The Dog Pound
DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 14, 2008
Messages
36,234
Reaction score
8,373
Location
Georgia
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
Why exactly is legal sanction required for the tools of an illegal revolution? Not passing judgment on such a revolution by calling it illegal, but all revolutions are illegal, especially if they lose. Assuming that a government would safeguard the means of its own destruction is a really bizarre notion.

I think you answered your own question. This country was born in revolution, and the founders themselves were revolutionaries or even terrorists by todays standards. They did have an intimate knowledge of the sacrifice they themselves had to make to throw off the yoke of tyranny. They thought the only way to guarantee a government that would not become tyrannical was to have an armed populace that could fight back with force if necessary.

What they did not foresee is that the safeties they put in place (Constitution) have done a pretty good job of making certain this government would not, and could not for the most part become truly tyrannical. So the need for armed rebellion is not really necessary as we can in most cases go to the SCOTUS etc and legally and peacefully rescind laws and policies deemed unconstitutional. As we see the states even today using the system legally to fight Federal government overreaching in the form of health care and gun rights. This system also works for the Federal government as seen in the recently decided gay marriage issue's and conceal carry laws.

Armed rebellion is always a last resort. In our modern times in the US it is even more remote due to our system of laws put together to thwart tyranny of the government or majority over the minority.
 

American

Beer Lover Extraordinaire
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Monthly Donator
Joined
Mar 11, 2006
Messages
90,980
Reaction score
29,438
Location
SE Virginia
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
You're right, the second amendment was to protect the several states from a tyrannical federal government. Things sure have changed.

But you're wrong about one thing. The government is nothing to fear. As former Libertarian presidential candidate, the late, great Harry Browne once said, you have no need to fear a government camera in every room because the odds are the camera won't work!

Complete unsubstantiated statement.
 

American

Beer Lover Extraordinaire
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Monthly Donator
Joined
Mar 11, 2006
Messages
90,980
Reaction score
29,438
Location
SE Virginia
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative

tererun

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 19, 2012
Messages
4,905
Reaction score
1,578
Location
The darkside of the moon
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Other
2 problems with the idea that gun ownership protects against tyranny.

1. Your gun is no longer effective. Yes, way back when owning a gun put you close to on par with military forces. Today the government has tanks, planes, armored cars, guided missiles, and drones. That is not to mention the better foot soldier weapons the military has compared to your regular gun owner. They are not concerned about gun owners when they do not have to be local to you and be in range of you to kill you.

2. Gun owners are cowardly for the most part and not heroes. They do not want guns to stand up to someone, they want guns to be above someone. They will not fight if the odds are even or stacked against them. They will never actually stand up to a tyrannical force taking over the country. They are not our heroes saving us from a tyrannical government and protecting our freedoms. They will barely stand up for their own rights with deadly force. In order to inspire any fear you have to be willing to fight. Hot air is not fighting.

gun owners are not patriotic heroes for buying a gun. They are either people seeking an entertainment venue, or scared people looking for a security blanket. It would be nice if people could stick to the honest reasons for owning a legal gun rather than jerking themselves off pretending they are this nation's heroic protectors.
 

tererun

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 19, 2012
Messages
4,905
Reaction score
1,578
Location
The darkside of the moon
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Other
You're right, the second amendment was to protect the several states from a tyrannical federal government. Things sure have changed.

But you're wrong about one thing. The government is nothing to fear. As former Libertarian presidential candidate, the late, great Harry Browne once said, you have no need to fear a government camera in every room because the odds are the camera won't work!

though the comment is funny with a grain of truth, I am old enough to remember a group of gun owners who decided to stand up to the government with deadly force to protect their Waco Texas compound and the government seemed pretty able to kick their asses. One might argue they might have dispatched the branch Dividians with a little more efficiency, but they were quite effective at it. That was before drones and a few other modern warfare inventions.
 

Master PO

Mixed Government advocate
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 22, 2012
Messages
32,516
Reaction score
5,321
Location
93,000,000 miles from Earth where its very Hot
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Right
2 problems with the idea that gun ownership protects against tyranny.

1. Your gun is no longer effective. Yes, way back when owning a gun put you close to on par with military forces. Today the government has tanks, planes, armored cars, guided missiles, and drones. That is not to mention the better foot soldier weapons the military has compared to your regular gun owner. They are not concerned about gun owners when they do not have to be local to you and be in range of you to kill you.

2. Gun owners are cowardly for the most part and not heroes. They do not want guns to stand up to someone, they want guns to be above someone. They will not fight if the odds are even or stacked against them. They will never actually stand up to a tyrannical force taking over the country. They are not our heroes saving us from a tyrannical government and protecting our freedoms. They will barely stand up for their own rights with deadly force. In order to inspire any fear you have to be willing to fight. Hot air is not fighting.

gun owners are not patriotic heroes for buying a gun. They are either people seeking an entertainment venue, or scared people looking for a security blanket. It would be nice if people could stick to the honest reasons for owning a legal gun rather than jerking themselves off pretending they are this nation's heroic protectors.

nothing but a personal rant against gun owners.
 

Master PO

Mixed Government advocate
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 22, 2012
Messages
32,516
Reaction score
5,321
Location
93,000,000 miles from Earth where its very Hot
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Right
One might argue they might have dispatched the branch Dividians with a little more efficiency, but they were quite effective at it. That was before drones and a few other modern warfare inventions.

sounds as if you wanted those people in WACO dead!
 

Black Dog

King Of The Dog Pound
DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 14, 2008
Messages
36,234
Reaction score
8,373
Location
Georgia
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
2 problems with the idea that gun ownership protects against tyranny.

1. Your gun is no longer effective. Yes, way back when owning a gun put you close to on par with military forces. Today the government has tanks, planes, armored cars, guided missiles, and drones. That is not to mention the better foot soldier weapons the military has compared to your regular gun owner. They are not concerned about gun owners when they do not have to be local to you and be in range of you to kill you.

2. Gun owners are cowardly for the most part and not heroes. They do not want guns to stand up to someone, they want guns to be above someone. They will not fight if the odds are even or stacked against them. They will never actually stand up to a tyrannical force taking over the country. They are not our heroes saving us from a tyrannical government and protecting our freedoms. They will barely stand up for their own rights with deadly force. In order to inspire any fear you have to be willing to fight. Hot air is not fighting.

gun owners are not patriotic heroes for buying a gun. They are either people seeking an entertainment venue, or scared people looking for a security blanket. It would be nice if people could stick to the honest reasons for owning a legal gun rather than jerking themselves off pretending they are this nation's heroic protectors.

What a complete load of ignorant, inexperienced opinion. Based more on hot air than anything even remotely resembling reality. Blanket statements and condescension is the best we can hope for from these members of our society.

We have come to expect this from some of the anti gun side. Then again these are the same people that are afraid of their law abiding neighbors having guns but not criminals, or so it would seem. They go out of their way to ignore, and refuse to address the real problems with gun crime and the inner city hoodlums who are the lions share of said crime. Then they lump suicide into crime statistics when it is not a crime. Instead they would rather blame law abiding citizens who have broken no law and only wish to enjoy their God given 2nd amendment rights.

As for the "the government has better weapons." I am glad this type of person was of no consequence in Libya etc. The people would still be slaves to a corrupt tyrant.
 

Black Dog

King Of The Dog Pound
DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 14, 2008
Messages
36,234
Reaction score
8,373
Location
Georgia
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
Just because the truth bothers you does not mean it is not true.

No truth at all. Just hot air backed up by... well... nothing, nothing at all.
 

tererun

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 19, 2012
Messages
4,905
Reaction score
1,578
Location
The darkside of the moon
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Other
sounds as if you wanted those people in WACO dead!

It doesn't matter if i wanted it or not. They were well armed, in a compound, and in a large group willing to fight and die for their group. They got steamrolled, and it really wasn't hard for the government to get rid of them. You are not effective or dangerous to the military. You cannot fight an enemy that doesn't even have to give you a shot at them to kill you. You could have full autos with extended clips and if you still cannot fight something you cannot physically shoot. Even the police with their much more limited arsenal are overpowering to you. The government doesn't fear your gun. So go back to the protecting yourself against criminals thing because that at least could happen. It is rare, but it might actually happen.
 

Black Dog

King Of The Dog Pound
DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 14, 2008
Messages
36,234
Reaction score
8,373
Location
Georgia
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
just because the truth bothers you does not mean it is not true.

Then why don't you address my large post. I'll tell you why, you can't.

No truth, none. The only thing that hurts here is a lack of integrity in the post.
 

tererun

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 19, 2012
Messages
4,905
Reaction score
1,578
Location
The darkside of the moon
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Other
what truth?

are you promoting that everything you say is truth?..... and nothing that comes from you is just own opinion.

wow, you do think you are an elitist.

No, your pathetic guns are nothing to the US military and just a minor concern to the police. That is a fact though you have deluded yourself into thinking you are Rambo. Also, we have seen a number of reductions to our freedoms and tyrannical actions and yet gun owners do not take up arms against the government. The miniscule number who have have met with death and arrest. Congress and the president o not even bother to ask themselves if gun owners would become violent if they pass a law against the people. It does not even cross their minds. That means the fear you inspire is a delusion that exists in your mind.

Oh, and I would not think so greatly of myself if I was not constantly responded to with this level of counter argument. if you want to tarnish my opinion of myself you will need to step up from your BS rhetoric and crappy one liners and make an actual argument or rebuttal.
 

Master PO

Mixed Government advocate
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 22, 2012
Messages
32,516
Reaction score
5,321
Location
93,000,000 miles from Earth where its very Hot
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Right
It doesn't matter if i wanted it or not. They were well armed, in a compound, and in a large group willing to fight and die for their group. They got steamrolled, and it really wasn't hard for the government to get rid of them. You are not effective or dangerous to the military. You cannot fight an enemy that doesn't even have to give you a shot at them to kill you. You could have full autos with extended clips and if you still cannot fight something you cannot physically shoot. Even the police with their much more limited arsenal are overpowering to you. The government doesn't fear your gun. So go back to the protecting yourself against criminals thing because that at least could happen. It is rare, but it might actually happen.

really the government does not fear the armed american?

then why have the senate had hearings on militia groups and the arming of american citizens.

as for Waco, i didnt see the people of do anything but stay holdup in a building.

sounds as though you dont love your fellow man, if he disagrees with you, and government can do anything to him they desire.
 

tererun

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 19, 2012
Messages
4,905
Reaction score
1,578
Location
The darkside of the moon
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Other
Then why don't you address my large post. I'll tell you why, you can't.

No truth, none. The only thing that hurts here is a lack of integrity in the post.

just because i did not quote it does not mean my post did not apply to it.
 
Top Bottom