• 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 myth that civilian gun ownership prevents tyranny

Howard the Duck

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 30, 2018
Messages
3,844
Reaction score
1,307
Location
Trapped in a world that I never made
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Progressive
Do high rates of gun ownership protect democracies? Data points to a resounding no.

This duck is looking forward to hearing your opinions on this interesting article. I question what I view as self serving gop/nra talking points on this matter.

https://thinkprogress.org/civilian-guns-do-not-prevent-tyranny-f831c6aa871c/

"There is, of course, a clear link between the Second Amendment and freedom, insofar as it permits freedoms for individuals to purchase and bear arms in the United States. As Pew found last year, some three-quarters of gun owners say the right to civilian gun ownership is “essential” to “their own personal sense of freedom.”

But is the right to civilian gun ownership also essential to the prevention of tyranny? Is it a key ingredient to the preservation, implementation, and extension of democracy?

The short answer: No. Data compiled by ThinkProgress from the past decade shows no correlation between civilian gun ownership rates and democracy — or low civilian gun ownership rates and the rise of a tyrannical government."
 
Last edited:
I've asked this myself. Specifically, when has gun ownership prevented tyranny in the United States? I've received two dubious answers to this thus far:

1)The Whiskey Rebellion. This revolt was put down, which isn't a great case for the success of guns in preventing tyranny.
2)"Well, there hasn't been tyranny yet, has there?"

Oh, and in before the thread gets booted.
 

It's ThinkProgress, a site that has a decidedly biased view on guns. And it sure as heck isn't FOR them. Whatever info they've got its going to be a one sided view. For instance, I didn't see anywhere in that article that shows were the government disarmed its citizens prior to losing freedoms. (in fact the word "disarm" isn't even mentioned ONCE in the entire article).

So no, not interesting in the slightest. Just propaganda.
 

Guns can also lead to tyranny....
 
I am more impressed with how many idiots run around thinking we do not have a form of tyranny now (or at least persistent appeals to authority to solve some issue and usually to disastrous results.)

And BTW, democracy is not about absence of tyranny. Even by design, all we are talking about is the will of the majority.
 

There is some truth in #2. It isn’t that there hasn’t been tyranny in the US, it is that there haven’t been enough people to agree there is tyranny. An armed populace isn’t sufficient. Enough of that armed populace have to agree that things have gotten so bad that it is worth risking their life and the lives of their families over. And in the US, where most people live a relatively comfortable life, things would have to get pretty damn bad for most people to trip that wire.
 
SheWolf said:
Guns can also lead to tyranny....
Click to expand...

Let me know when we can go back to the motivations of people, might tell us more than where this debate is going. Just saying...
 

ThinkProgress is not the source. Roxanne Dunbar-Ortiz, the author of Loaded, a recent history of the Second Amendment, is.

Thanks for listening.
 


It is not a myth. :roll:

1. It is founded first and foremost on OUR successful revolution against England. The fact that guns were available to anyone who could afford one back then formed the basis of most militia organizations which supported the Continental Congress.

2. Comparing the United States with other countries is a false dilemma, first because there have been successful revolutions all over the world throughout history when the citizens were able to arm themselves. Second, because the right does not guarantee success, only the capability to TRY, makes pointing out unsuccessful rebellions rather disingenuous. Often as not such unsuccessful rebellions may compel a government to enact positive changes as opposed to greater repressions.

3. There have been several rebellions in the USA since the revolution. I pointed this out in a different thread:


The right to keep and bear arms is being exercised by between 70 and 110 million people, depending on which stats you buy into...meanwhile the rate of gun crime in comparison is miniscule, and that of "mass shootings" almost a statistical non-issue.

The reason people push for gun control...is to CONTROL the multi-millions strong population of otherwise law-abiding citizens from ever using them in any way gun control advocates are afraid of...including rebellion.
 
Last edited:

No offense, but that's not a great argument. It reminds me of the tiger analogy.

Man 1: Waves arms up and down.
Man 2: "What are you doing?"
Man 1: "I'm keeping tigers away."
Man 2: "But there are no tigers around here."
Man 1: "See? It's working."

Without the theory really being tested, all it really tells us is that either gun owners have an incredibly narrow definition of tyranny, have been unwilling to confront tyranny, or have been unable to confront tyranny. I propose that it is all three.
 

While I don't agree with you entirely, because I don't think America is as corrupt and unfree as many other countries in the world, I think that a lot of gun owners wouldn't complain if tyranny took over. They wouldn't recognize if they saw it. They don't point their guns in the right direction now.

If anything, some angry gun owners are more likely to take it to the streets and brawl against one another.

I have watched some documentaries about antifa and KKK, and some of those people believe they are fighting a revolution in the streets. The KKK thinks they are going to start race war or something, and a bunch of people will wake up and take their side... something like that. It's crazy.
 

I think an informed populace is more important, because being simply armed isn't enough. There are armed tyrants. An American citizen should understand the difference between freedom and tyranny, and they should know why the Constitution is important and should be upheld. Based on some news reports and converations I have been having with people, I think our schools could be doing a better job on the educational front.
 

Iraq was one of the most heavily armed populations on the planet, and yet that didn't stop Saddam from his strong arm tactics.
 

Having a revolution as a colony is a lot different from fighting your own government. The colonies didn't have a trained military, and GB couldn't import the scale of their armed forces. After the revolution, the founders were probably also nervous that GB would return.

Aside from that, I have a really really hard time believing armed citizens could overthrow the power of the current US government and it's army.
 

It wasn't our being armed that won the revolution. Rather, it was the French blockade of Chesapeake Bay.
 

A critical point is that while more guns are in circulation than ever before, fewer gun owners exist on a percentage basis than in almost any time in modern American history.

So crime rates are just as likely to be falling because fewer people own guns.

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/despit...-of-households-owning-guns-is-on-the-decline/
 

The reason that is probably true is because the right appeals to authority just as much as the left does. It just happens to be in a different regard.

The KKK has been talking about a race war for decades now, the extreme right has been talking about government tyranny for just as long, and the NRA still calls me several times per month with the literal word for word opener “they are coming for your guns.”

It is called intentional installment of fear for a political reason, and it has been going on so long that you are probably right. Most of those claiming the 2nd Amendment is all about prevention of tyranny have no issue with tyranny assuming it matches their ideology... that has **** to do with freedom.
 
Howard the Duck said:
Could you elaborate?
Click to expand...

It's happened in American cults. Jonestown the most prolific. Their leader started importing guns to Jonestown for "their safety" and "protection." An armed force was created to protect the followers hostile outsiders and a government attack, instead the armed guards held them captive, prevented escape, and also prevented escape during the mass murder and suicide.

There are other cults in America... there was a Mormon off shoot... I can't think of the name...

Also the Russian Revolution which became the USSR. It was a revolution, then a dictatorship.

Guns can protect freedom, but they can also protect tyrants and dictatorships...
 

Thanks for sharing.

Tell me. How did being armed work out for David Koresh? The SLA? LaVoy Finicum? John Brown?
 
Howard the Duck said:
Thanks for sharing.

Tell me. How did being armed work out for David Koresh? The SLA? LaVoy Finicum? John Brown?
Click to expand...

There were uprising against the Nazis. There were Jewish Partisan fighters and various nationalist fighters like the Polish Resistance and Czech. In all of those cases, there was a problem with armed citizens going up against a highly organized and much powerful and more equipped national military. I admire a lot of those fighters, but many of them admit that they knew they were not going to defeat the Nazis themselves. The Polish were counting on allied forces helping them. The Czechs weren't expecting the Nazis to retaliate in the manner they did. The Partisans were fighting, because they thought it was better to die fighting than not.

And in all those situations, people with children were more hesitant to join an uprising because they thought Nazi retaliation posed the biggest risk to their kids, and that's very true. Certain people want to go down fighting, but most children to not unless they are brainwashed as in the cults.
 

And yet the revolutions that ended the Soviet state or that characterized the Arab spring were mostly executed without a single shot.
 
Guns don't kill people, people kill people. Guns are useless without the will to resist oppression, and oppression can be resisted without guns.
 
Howard the Duck said:
ThinkProgress is not the source. Roxanne Dunbar-Ortiz, the author of Loaded, a recent history of the Second Amendment, is.

Thanks for listening.
Click to expand...

From your own post and article:

Data compiled by ThinkProgress from the past decade shows no correlation between civilian gun ownership rates and democracy — or low civilian gun ownership rates and the rise of a tyrannical government."
Click to expand...

Thanks for trying to side step.
 
Kal'Stang said:
For instance, I didn't see anywhere in that article that shows were the government disarmed its citizens prior to losing freedoms.
Click to expand...

Wouldn't such cases be proof positive that gun ownership is no guarantee of liberty?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register
Cookies are required to use this site. You must accept them to continue using the site. Learn more…