• 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

VanceMack said:
While I am NOT concerned about their rising a tyrant, I DO think it rather interesting that leftists are very quick to both bring up this argument and at the same time, scoff at the notion that an armed citizenry makes for an effective deterrent force, while at the same time those people regularly wet themselves over 120 million law abiding citizens owning "weapons of war" and "mass destruction".

I will say this...there will be more **** than a little bit if the idiot leftists that are vocally advocating for seizing firearms ever find enough gumption to try to act on it.
Click to expand...

No one in this thread advocated anything of the sort. Certainly I didn't.
 
VanceMack said:
While I am NOT concerned about their rising a tyrant, I DO think it rather interesting that leftists are very quick to both bring up this argument and at the same time, scoff at the notion that an armed citizenry makes for an effective deterrent force, while at the same time those people regularly wet themselves over 120 million law abiding citizens owning "weapons of war" and "mass destruction".

I will say this...there will be more **** than a little bit if the idiot leftists that are vocally advocating for seizing firearms ever find enough gumption to try to act on it.
Click to expand...

they also claim that we don't need guns to defend ourselves from criminals but yet they say gun violence is so high that 100 million honest gun owners must have their rights curtailed because of that violence. Lying is constantly what the anti gun movement does
 
TurtleDude said:
you really haven't been here long enough for me to care. the fact is 80% or more of the murders in the USA are caused by felons-often killing felons. ITs been posted here dozens of times and I am not going to look it up just because you don't do your homework.
Click to expand...

Then let us lesser posters discuss this without your learned interference.

You made the claim. I'd think a poster of your high caliber would be proud to back it up.
 
Howard the Duck said:
Tell that to the Soviet Union. Here's a list of countries that revolted against the Bear and won their independence without firing a shot:

1. Armenia
2. Azerbaijan
3. Belarus
4. Estonia
5. Georgia
6. Kazakhstan
7. Kyrgyzstan
8. Latvia
9. Lithuania
10. Moldova
11. Russia
12. Tajikistan
13. Turkmenistan
14. Ukraine
15. Uzbekistan
Click to expand...

Link?
 
apdst said:
In the hands of the government, against an unarmed citizenry.
Click to expand...

Or in the hands of an extremist group trying to overthrow a democratic government.
 
Slingshot Bob said:
Link?
Click to expand...

they "won" their independence because Reagan bankrupted the USSR on defense spending. They didn't' have much of a choice but to let those satellites go
 
TurtleDude said:
they "won" their independence because Reagan bankrupted the USSR on defense spending. They didn't' have much of a choice but to let those satellites go
Click to expand...

They won their independence because Mathias Root exposed the Soviet's lack of look down radar and their fatal vulnerability to cruise missiles--a Carter initiative.

The politburo was also devastated by the rapid fire deaths of Presidents Brezhnev, Andropov, and Chernyenko. 4 presidents in a matter of two years caused both a leadership crisis and a leadership vacuum.

One thing is for certain: it had absolutely nothing to do with gun rights and ownership.

apdst said:
One things for damn sure: no tyrannical government has ever been stopped by an unarmed citizenry.
Click to expand...

Consider your point refuted.
 
Last edited:
Howard the Duck said:
They won their independence because Mathias Root exposed the Soviets lack of look down radar and their fatal vulnerability to cruise missiles--a Carter initiative.
Click to expand...

The Soviet Union's economy was already dying b/c of its communist-based ideology. Doesn't work.
 
Howard the Duck said:
They won their independence because Mathias Root exposed the Soviets lack of look down radar and their fatal vulnerability to cruise missiles--a Carter initiative.
Click to expand...

again, America killed the Beast and the little satellite nations were able to get away
 
TurtleDude said:
they "won" their independence because Reagan bankrupted the USSR on defense spending. They didn't' have much of a choice but to let those satellites go
Click to expand...

You mean Howard implied they "won" without guns on their own? But omitted a key part?

All political and legal power flows from the gun barrel.
The law with no teeth is a toothless and declawed lion. Fit to laugh at as it is disregaurded.

If guns are good enough for the man, they are good enough for all men.
 
Slingshot Bob said:
You mean Howard implied they "won" without guns on their own? But omitted a key part?

All political and legal power flows from the gun barrel.
The law with no teeth is a toothless and declawed lion. Fit to laugh at as it is disregaurded.

If guns are good enough for the man, they are good enough for all men.
Click to expand...

yeah its like saying a woman didn't need a gun to get away from a violent rapist because some good samaritan appeared and shot the asshole before the asshole could harm her.
 
Cardinal said:
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.
Click to expand...

the question here is..

IF there was a tiger stalking you.. would you be better off waving your arms up and down..

Or holding a .375 H and H ?

I would vote for the latter.

and that's the obvious thing here. What is the likelihood of taking over a people that can defend themselves.. or ones that are unarmed?

Which has a greater chance of defeating a tyrannical dictator?

I would vote for the armed citizens.. versus the unarmed ones.. that's common sense. And its what our founding fathers thought as well.
 
apdst said:
That kills the OP's argument. You know that, right?
Click to expand...

Not really because a democratic government is far more likely to operate within the law. It's easier to put down a rebellion by dropping bombs on them and killing their entire family in revenge - and it's a tyrannical government that would do that.
 
Aristaeus said:
Not really because a democratic government is far more likely to operate within the law. It's easier to put down a rebellion by dropping bombs on them and killing their entire family in revenge - and it's a tyrannical government that would do that.
Click to expand...

The American Civil War proves you wrong.
 
Captain Adverse said:
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.
Click to expand...

And that's some Grade A bullcrap right there.
People who push for gun "control" have the mistaken notion that the guns will magically disappear.
People who push for gun regulations hope that some common sense might prevail and that people won't turn to violence as the instant answer to a problem. Not much hope for that one either.

I have guns for very specific reasons: to protect my family, my home and property.

The one thing I do not have guns for is some absurd notion that I'll be able to fight the US military or overthrow the government.**
Large portions of the Middle East are AWASH in guns, and yet the U.S. military, God Bless Them, cuts through heavily armed neighborhoods like a hot knife through butter.

PS: **indicates precisely the armed idiots I also intend to protect myself from, the ones who think they're on some godly mission to overthrow the government.
 
Howard the Duck said:
No one in this thread advocated anything of the sort. Certainly I didn't.
Click to expand...
I didnt say you did, but certainly you wouldnt deny that several idiot leftist politicians have started to suggest such a course of action. And when/if that becomes a 'thing' which side will you stand on?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom