• 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!

Is it Ok to "Gear Up" in Case Your Government Need to be Fought Against?

Is it Ok to "Gear Up" in Case You Need to Fight Your Government?

  • Yes.

    Votes: 43 69.4%

  • No.

    Votes: 8 12.9%

  • It depends on...(Explain).

    Votes: 11 17.7%

  • My Government coul NEVER be corrupt...or other silliness.

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Total voters
    62
upsideguy said:
... or course, the fallacy in this statement is the concept of "abandoning the Constitution", which seems to be in the eye of the beholder.

Some people would argue that Constitution has been abandoned because the government has done things inconsistent with their individual understanding and view of the Constitution. Are those persons now "at war"..... Other people, of course, think the first group is nuts.
Click to expand...
True enough. The question then becomes at what point is it deemed to be both legit and 'enough'.
 
SouthernDemocrat said:
I think its a very expensive delusion to arm up in case you need to fight the government. I actually kind of feel sorry for people that actually think they need to be armed against the government. I mean here you are lucky enough to be born in what is arguable one of the greatest countries in the history of civilization. You should be happy and live your life to the fullest rather than be preoccupied with delusions about having to fight against some tyrannical government.

Anyway, makes me think of this old Onion article:

[/SIZE][/h]View attachment 67195525



62-Year-Old With Gun Only One Standing Between Nation And Full-Scale Government Takeover - The Onion - America's Finest News Source[/FONT]
Click to expand...

Oh my god, this NEEDS to be a movie!
 
SouthernDemocrat said:
I think its a very expensive delusion to arm up in case you need to fight the government. I actually kind of feel sorry for people that actually think they need to be armed against the government. I mean here you are lucky enough to be born in what is arguable one of the greatest countries in the history of civilization. You should be happy and live your life to the fullest rather than be preoccupied with delusions about having to fight against some tyrannical government.

Anyway, makes me think of this old Onion article:

[/SIZE][/h]View attachment 67195525



62-Year-Old With Gun Only One Standing Between Nation And Full-Scale Government Takeover - The Onion - America's Finest News Source[/FONT]
Click to expand...

Why go to the 'Onion' when you have had an example recently?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bundy_standoff

Not taking sides...but that IS an example of an armed citizenry disagreeing with the federal government and taking a stand.

And I know liberals love to hate the Bundy's (except Kelly...she was ditzy but she was hot). But at what point would YOU take a stand? Is there anything you believe in? See...I dont know how this all plays out in the end...but would you have imagined 2 years ago that we would go from shock and outrage at the concept of the US government spying on its citizens and using warrant-less wiretaps to now mewing silently in acceptance while the US government collects every bit of electronic and digital data that is placed on the web?

collect-citizen-data.jpg

We've literally gone from **** off...you dont have a right to search my car to well...if you dont have anything to hide you dont have anything to fear.

Do you trust the government today? 20 years ago would you have imagined we would be OK with this?
 
ttwtt78640 said:
More likely to occur in the unlikely event of Australian style federal gun control.
Click to expand...

Which makes me think of this one:

Obama Paranoid Government Coming For His Guns
Click to expand...

800.jpg

WASHINGTON—Reflecting attitudes held throughout his personal and political life, President Barack Obama restated Thursday his long-standing fear that the U.S. government is even now putting measures in place to take his guns away.

Obama, an avid gun enthusiast with an extensive history of mistrusting the federal government, claimed Washington's actions in recent years have been particularly egregious and described its "rabid anti-gun zealotry" as "some real sinister, Nazi-type ****."

"The thing for damn sure is you can't trust 'em," Obama told reporters Thursday morning, cradling a .22-caliber bolt-action hunting rifle in his arms. "No matter how hard you work or how many taxes you pay, the goddamn government's sure as **** gonna pass some law or officiate some warrant to try and take your guns. Because when the people don't have any guns, that's when they take control."

"Just like in England," the president added. "They took away all the guns there, and now they have video cameras all over the place to spy on everybody. You think America wouldn't do that if they could?"
Click to expand...

Obama Paranoid Government Coming For His Guns - The Onion - America's Finest News Source

The absurdity of the notion that we need to arm up against the federal government (rather than just exercise our rights to vote and petition our government) is just laughable. You can only ridicule these nutjobs that think this way.
 
SouthernDemocrat said:
Which makes me think of this one:



View attachment 67195532



Obama Paranoid Government Coming For His Guns - The Onion - America's Finest News Source

The absurdity of the notion that we need to arm up against the federal government (rather than just exercise our rights to vote and petition our government) is just laughable. You can only ridicule these nutjobs that think this way.
Click to expand...

Puttng your Onion bits aside, it is not completely unreasonable to consider the possibility of the US moving to the Australian model of gun control if enough loons so inclined were ever elected.

“When Australia had a mass killing – I think it was in Tasmania – about 25 years ago, it was just so shocking the entire country said ‘well we’re going to completely change our gun laws’, and they did. And it hasn’t happened since.”
Click to expand...

Obama backs Australia's gun laws while condemning latest mass shootings in US | US news | The Guardian
 
Ntharotep said:
There were some of our forefathers who believed in the American People having weapons in case the Government ever got so corrupt that we needed to "fight back".
I don't think they planned on tanks, ballistics above and beyond canons, etc.

So. What are the thoughts on this? Should a person be allowed to "stockpile" weapons (legal ones) in case of Revolution or no?
If you think they should be able to stockpile weapons that aren't legal then tell us about that too!

And...Debate!
Click to expand...

It should be ok to collect weaponry. Causing a revolt, not so much.
 
Cardinal said:
If you have a knife, they have a gun. If you get a semiautomatic, they have a flamethrower. If you get a rocket launcher, they have a tank. If you get an anti-tank missile, they'll flatten your ass with a cruise missile. It's not an arms race you're really going to win.
Click to expand...

depends on the environment, the numbers and so forth. Kinda hard for a rogue government to carpet bomb NYC because a few snipers have been taking out government operatives through long range rifle skills
 
Lovebug said:
It should be ok to collect weaponry. Causing a revolt, not so much.
Click to expand...

exactly, you should be able to buy, keep and possess any type of firearm. Strelas, Claymores or Thermite Grenades-not such much.

but its the use of weapons that normally can be problematic.
 
Redress said:
Since you specify legally, then of course it is ok. Retarded to do, silly, laughable and a host of other terms apply too, but if you ain't breaking any laws, have at it.
Click to expand...

I think the actions of the Guerrillas since Vietnam to today, shows a weaker force can effectively fight against the US government.
 
TurtleDude said:
depends on the environment, the numbers and so forth. Kinda hard for a rogue government to carpet bomb NYC because a few snipers have been taking out government operatives through long range rifle skills
Click to expand...

People keep thinking if people revolted against the Government today, it would be a traditional stand up fight. When it would be guerrilla fighting.
 
Last edited:
I think the whole concept is idiotic and paranoid. If they want to "get you", you're dead. Period. No matter how many guns you have at your disposal, they have more. The idea that you're going to hold off an armed government assault with your AK47 is just childish. Too bad there are so many children out there.
 
cpgrad08 said:
People can thinking if people revolted against the Government today, it would be a traditional stand up fight. When it would be guerrilla fighting.
Click to expand...

To quote Sgt "Oddball" (Kelly's Heroes)

Nobody said nothing about locking horns with no Tiger Tank
 
Ntharotep said:
There were some of our forefathers who believed in the American People having weapons in case the Government ever got so corrupt that we needed to "fight back".
I don't think they planned on tanks, ballistics above and beyond canons, etc.
Click to expand...

I don't think they planned on high speed printers, photographs, color magazines, computers, TV, radio, internet, Mega-churches other than the catholic church, x-ray machines, lie detectors, listening devices, phone taps, metal detectors, high rise buildings, video cameras and etc. But yet the 1st,3rd, 4th and other amendments still just as relevant.


So. What are the thoughts on this? Should a person be allowed to "stockpile" weapons (legal ones) in case of Revolution or no?
If you think they should be able to stockpile weapons that aren't legal then tell us about that too!
Click to expand...

Yes and yes. The idea of an illegal gun should be seen as no different than the idea of an illegal bible, illegal newspaper and any other thing guaranteed by the constitution.
 
Cardinal said:
If you have a knife, they have a gun. If you get a semiautomatic, they have a flamethrower. If you get a rocket launcher, they have a tank. If you get an anti-tank missile, they'll flatten your ass with a cruise missile. It's not an arms race you're really going to win.
Click to expand...
I guess that you haven't paid attention to unconventional warfare. Castro took over Cuba with guerilla forces, US defeated in Vietnam by guerilla forces, Soviets defeated in Afghanistan by guerilla forces and ISIS is doing well in Syria with guerilla forces.

A tank loses to large, motivated unconventional forces every time. The only issue is getting enough motivated people.
 
Ntharotep said:
There were some of our forefathers who believed in the American People having weapons in case the Government ever got so corrupt that we needed to "fight back".
I don't think they planned on tanks, ballistics above and beyond canons, etc.

So. What are the thoughts on this? Should a person be allowed to "stockpile" weapons (legal ones) in case of Revolution or no?
If you think they should be able to stockpile weapons that aren't legal then tell us about that too!

And...Debate!
Click to expand...

I think it's a suicide mission, but yes. I believe it is quite alright to build up a small weapons armory just in case the government becomes overreaching. I have no plans to do so. But, I definitely understand that concept.
 
Cephus said:
I think the whole concept is idiotic and paranoid. If they want to "get you", you're dead. Period. No matter how many guns you have at your disposal, they have more. The idea that you're going to hold off an armed government assault with your AK47 is just childish. Too bad there are so many children out there.
Click to expand...

Holy mackeral bucko, somebody forgot to tell the Vietnamese that, and the Afghanis/Taliban.
 
upsideguy said:
... or course, the fallacy in this statement is the concept of "abandoning the Constitution", which seems to be in the eye of the beholder.

Some people would argue that Constitution has been abandoned because the government has done things inconsistent with their individual understanding and view of the Constitution. Are those persons now "at war"..... Other people, of course, think the first group is nuts.

yes, its ok to gear up. It is your right. However, I fall in the camp of those that think gearing up to fight the US Military is nuts as is thinking the US Government is out to get you is nuts.... you know, up there with thinking that when football players huddle up, they are talking about YOU.
Click to expand...

I fall into the camp that believes that at least a major part of the military will side with the rebels, not the government and bring their weapons with them. That's what happened with many takeovers.
 
Eric7216 said:
I guess that you haven't paid attention to unconventional warfare. Castro took over Cuba with guerilla forces, US defeated in Vietnam by guerilla forces, Soviets defeated in Afghanistan by guerilla forces and ISIS is doing well in Syria with guerilla forces.

A tank loses to large, motivated unconventional forces every time. The only issue is getting enough motivated people.
Click to expand...

I'm sorry, I wasn't aware I walked into the middle of a militaman's revolutionary wet dream.
 
Cardinal said:
If you have a knife, they have a gun. If you get a semiautomatic, they have a flamethrower. If you get a rocket launcher, they have a tank. If you get an anti-tank missile, they'll flatten your ass with a cruise missile. It's not an arms race you're really going to win.
Click to expand...

We out number them greatly and gorilla warfare is the hardest to defeat.
 
Redress said:
Since you specify legally, then of course it is ok. Retarded to do, silly, laughable and a host of other terms apply too, but if you ain't breaking any laws, have at it.
Click to expand...

Easy to look damn stupid when you being led into that boxcar.

It's better to go down swinging.
 
roughdraft274 said:
Exactly.

It's kind of like those retarded militia guys in that building up in Oregon or where ever. They think they are holding off the government with all their rifles when in reality if they tried that against an ACTUAL dictatorship or tyrannical government, that building would have been flattened with all of them inside it on day one and rebuilding would start on day 2.
Click to expand...

Yah..it's better to be helpless, pathetic...

Sheep.jpg
 
Ntharotep said:
There were some of our forefathers who believed in the American People having weapons in case the Government ever got so corrupt that we needed to "fight back".
I don't think they planned on tanks, ballistics above and beyond canons, etc.

So. What are the thoughts on this? Should a person be allowed to "stockpile" weapons (legal ones) in case of Revolution or no?
If you think they should be able to stockpile weapons that aren't legal then tell us about that too!

And...Debate!
Click to expand...

I guess. It's just really weird.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom