• 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!

Tyrannical federal government

S

Scorps2000

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
May 21, 2019
Messages
396
Reaction score
66
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Conservative
One reason we have the right to own firearms is to give citizens the opportunity to fight back against a tyrannical federal government.

Now, given the strength and wide range of "firearms" the US military has, is this outdated? There would have to be a fraction in
the US military to support private citizens to make that work. What are the chances that would happen? So my question is, why do
private citizens still need firearms that are used to kill people?

Just asking, I'm actually a firearms advocate as long as everyone that owns a gun goes through training and a background check.
 
I think there is a Sizeable minority of gun owners who say they own guns for this purpose who is as likely to aid government atrocities should it ever happen as they are to prevent them.

All that would need to happen is that tyrannical government, local, state or otherwise would simply need to be their political color and recruit them or give them carte Blanche to kill the opposition that they fervently hate.
 
Scorps2000 said:
One reason we have the right to own firearms is to give citizens the opportunity to fight back against a tyrannical federal government.

Now, given the strength and wide range of "firearms" the US military has, is this outdated?
Click to expand...

It is outdated, but not because the weaponry the United States Armed Forces can bring to bear. Forces with inferior firepower have long been able to triumph or better armed foes.

It's an outdated concept because tyrannical elements rarely seize power through clandestine efforts and without popular support. The Communists succeeded in Russia and China because they had the support of millions. The Ayatollahs in Iran enjoyed widespread support among the public when the revolution occurred.
 
Yes, the ban on fully automatic weapons, grenade launchers, armor piercing rockets, anti aircraft missiles...

A militia is pretty useless without modern firepower.
 
Do people still buy into the crazy notion that one day Joe Nobody will spring from his La-Z-Boy in a shower of empty Natty cans and grab his guns to save us all from the tyranny of a big bad gubmint that can end him from anywhere in the world?
 
swing_voter said:
Yes, the ban on fully automatic weapons, grenade launchers, armor piercing rockets, anti aircraft missiles...

A militia is pretty useless without modern firepower.
Click to expand...

That's my point. Even with "modern firepower" isn't a militia pretty useless?
 
Scorps2000 said:
One reason we have the right to own firearms is to give citizens the opportunity to fight back against a tyrannical federal government.

Now, given the strength and wide range of "firearms" the US military has, is this outdated? There would have to be a fraction in
the US military to support private citizens to make that work. What are the chances that would happen? So my question is, why do
private citizens still need firearms that are used to kill people?

Just asking, I'm actually a firearms advocate as long as everyone that owns a gun goes through training and a background check.
Click to expand...

Well a Tyrannical Government woul mean that they are not following the Constitution and as such the Military are no longer abligated to follow their orders seems some believe the military would simply follow orders, that is the sign of someone that has never served.

As far as background checks, we already do that and as for training anyone, in most States that wants to carry does have to go through training. So much for that idea, already done.
 
Casper said:
Well a Tyrannical Government woul mean that they are not following the Constitution and as such the Military are no longer abligated to follow their orders seems some believe the military would simply follow orders, that is the sign of someone that has never served.
Click to expand...

The problem with your argument is that the Military relies on the government to tell it what is or is not Constitutional and it does simply follow orders. Washington spent the better part of his presidency stamping out various armed rebellions and, of course, the South lost the civil war despite having some legitimate Constitutional grievances. The Military has been involved in numerous unconstitutional doings in the course of our country’s history ranging from arms sales to firing on Americans.
 
Scorps2000 said:
One reason we have the right to own firearms is to give citizens the opportunity to fight back against a tyrannical federal government.
Now, given the strength and wide range of "firearms" the US military has, is this outdated? There would have to be a fraction in
the US military to support private citizens to make that work. What are the chances that would happen? So my question is, why do
private citizens still need firearms that are used to kill people?
Just asking, I'm actually a firearms advocate as long as everyone that owns a gun goes through training and a background check.
Click to expand...

In a flat out battle, citizens wouldn't stand a chance.
But that's not what would happen.

Places like Vietnam, Iraq, and Afghanistan have shown us how an armed populace can make an armed occupation untenable.
 
Scorps2000 said:
That's my point. Even with "modern firepower" isn't a militia pretty useless?
Click to expand...
How modern are the folks we were fighting in Afghanistan and Iraq?

It's not about battlefields, resounding victories and crushing defeats.
It's about being able to wear down the larger, better armed force to where the occupation is too difficult for the reward.
 
Scorps2000 said:
One reason we have the right to own firearms is to give citizens the opportunity to fight back against a tyrannical federal government.

Now, given the strength and wide range of "firearms" the US military has, is this outdated? There would have to be a fraction in
the US military to support private citizens to make that work. What are the chances that would happen? So my question is, why do
private citizens still need firearms that are used to kill people?

Just asking, I'm actually a firearms advocate as long as everyone that owns a gun goes through training and a background check.
Click to expand...

why? do you think the right to vote should require a literacy test too? You really aren't a firearms advocate when you think a constitutional right requires a test or training to exercise and some of your other points are the same thing we see from gun banners
 
Scorps2000 said:
That's a good point, should we modify the 2nd amendment?
Click to expand...

its a stupid point. it is akin to blaming child porn on the first amendment
 
TurtleDude said:
why? do you think the right to vote should require a literacy test too? You really aren't a firearms advocate when you think a constitutional right requires a test or training to exercise and some of your other points are the same thing we see from gun banners
Click to expand...

Yes, I do feel that voters should know what the candidates stand for before voting. Some voters vote blindly.
 
Scorps2000 said:
One reason we have the right to own firearms is to give citizens the opportunity to fight back against a tyrannical federal government.

Now, given the strength and wide range of "firearms" the US military has, is this outdated? There would have to be a fraction in
the US military to support private citizens to make that work. What are the chances that would happen? So my question is, why do
private citizens still need firearms that are used to kill people?

Just asking, I'm actually a firearms advocate as long as everyone that owns a gun goes through training and a background check.
Click to expand...

At the time the 2A was ratified, guns were not the biggest or most lethal weapons existing.

There were notably cannons in use by our military.

Still, the framers felt that personal possession of firearms was a good idea.

I’ve learned that genius’ ideas are often good ideas.

Whatever else these guys were, they were also geniuses.
 
The folks who say they own firearms to protect themselves from an overreaching government are only kidding themselves. They would be slaughtered by government troops.
 
bongsaway said:
The folks who say they own firearms to protect themselves from an overreaching government are only kidding themselves. They would be slaughtered by government troops.
Click to expand...

that depends on how many troopers would follow a dictator and how many citizens would resist
 
Casper said:
Well a Tyrannical Government woul mean that they are not following the Constitution and as such the Military are no longer abligated to follow their orders seems some believe the military would simply follow orders, that is the sign of someone that has never served.
Click to expand...
Agreed.

Napoleon said:
The problem with your argument is that the Military relies on the government to tell it what is or is not Constitutional and it does simply follow orders. Washington spent the better part of his presidency stamping out various armed rebellions and, of course, the South lost the civil war despite having some legitimate Constitutional grievances. The Military has been involved in numerous unconstitutional doings in the course of our country’s history ranging from arms sales to firing on Americans.
Click to expand...
1. No, military leaders do not blindly accept as fact anything their elected leaders tell them. Not only are members of the military not obliged to follow unlawful orders, they are obliged to not comply.
2. What “legitimate Constitutional grievances” did the South have with it's government?
3. “The military”, as an organization, has not been involved in numerous unconstitutional doings in the course of our country’s history ranging from arms sales to firing on Americans.
 
bongsaway said:
The folks who say they own firearms to protect themselves from an overreaching government are only kidding themselves. They would be slaughtered by government troops.
Click to expand...

And that's just the army ground troops, not counting the Air Force ground attack planes and drones.
 
Scorps2000 said:
One reason we have the right to own firearms is to give citizens the opportunity to fight back against a tyrannical federal government.

Now, given the strength and wide range of "firearms" the US military has, is this outdated?
Click to expand...

The US military is made up of citizens, in case you hadn't been briefed, and for good measure, the US citizenry includes millions of former soldiers.
 
Tlrmln said:
The US military is made up of citizens, in case you hadn't been briefed, and for good measure, the US citizenry includes millions of former soldiers.
Click to expand...

The German Wehrmacht was made up of German citizens (and the SS was mostly German citizens too)

The Imperial Japanese Army was made up of Japanese citizens

The Red Army was made up of Soviet citizens


The majority of the countries' people were peace loving citizens. But the tyrannical few dominated the peace loving, law abiding majority.

Why would Americans be any different ?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom