• 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!

Do firearms empower people?

Do firearms empower people?


  • Total voters
    52
Exercising one's rights. A means to prevent tyranny. Self defense. The means to hunt.


Do firearms empower people? Note that this is not pertaining specifically to the US or the 2nd amendment, but rather a general question.

I don't know if it empowers me ... but they DO help me compensate for my little ... well, you know .... (After all, I've got 11 of them)
 
I once read that those in possession of firearms are more likely to find themselves in a position to use it, and without having an issue with anyone feeling the need to arm themselves, it's this very reason I've chosen to live comfortably without a weapon.

Perhaps those individuals felt like they needed firearms because they find themselves in positions to need one before they had any.
 
perhaps, if your point is you don't feel a need for a weapon but you do not deny that others might nor do you wish to interfere with their choice then my comment was improper and I apologize

With a little more thought, I’d have to say that until I’m in a position to actually be able to afford a firearm, only then can I be sure I’d not want one when I’ve always been quite fond of tricked-out AR-15’s.



As for feeling empowered with a firearm, I’d like to think I’d be more humbled because I’d be walking softly while carrying a big stick. I don’t know, it’s hard to say from my current position.

Appreciate the apology and no worries, I've recently misread a few posts. It happen s.
 
I do not think they "empower" all people.

But I completely believe that there is a group of people with emotional issues that carrying a weapon makes them feel like they are empowered to do things they normally would never do.
 
Here, I am one of three , a minority if ever there was one . IMO, the firearms and weaponry give the weak confidence .. or so they think . In reality - NO. Knowledge is necessary..
But, if we continue to regress into the 1700s, this may change ..
 
You are right and you are wrong. You are right that if you are insufficiently armed then yes all you have is an illusion to resist tyranny. However if you are sufficiently armed then your potential for resistance is NOT illusion. If the cost to the tyranny is light or nothing then they will pay and not think about paying, its the cost of doing business. If however the potential cost is expensive or more so then they may not be so quick to pay said cost. The principle of mutually assured destruction is based on the principle of cost. As costs to the various parties in a conflict go up the less the likelihood that armed conflict will occur and the more likely a negotiation occurs. So the ability to extract high to potential adversaries costs is a worthwhile ability and negotiating tool.

You can't be sufficiently armed to resist a tyrannical government in this country because our government, should it ever decide to become tyrannical, is always going to be armed significantly better than the resistance.

Only a true civil war, where the government splits fairly evenly and both sides take along the weaponry the government possesses, would allow a chance for victory from the "resistance" side.

In that case, it wouldn't be resistance to tyranny, because the side that is considered tyrannical would not have enough authority (due to the split) in order to actually be tyrannical. It would only become a tyrannical government if it actually wins the civil war.

But if the government made the shift to tyranny without splitting up, any armed resistance by the people would be futile due to the disproportion of armament.
 
As I mentioned above, guns empower people to do whatever they want. That both applies to fighting back against tyranny, and being a tyrant in the first place. I can't name any tyrants who were unarmed.

We would also have to get into an argument about what constitutes 'tyranny'. Not sure the US government is any more or less tyrannical than the UK...

I can show you were citizens that were unarmed face tyranny.

Arguing about what qualifies as tyranny is like arguing how to define fast. It's relative. To some, if their welfare check doesn't come on the day it's expected, they think it's tryanny. My brother is a postal carrier and had that very conversation with someone who got that handout.
 
Dont hate me for your loss of freedom, mate.
Who's hating anything?

I can show you were citizens that were unarmed face tyranny.
Tyranny from the armed! Pretty much everything cuts both ways, though.

Arguing about what qualifies as tyranny is like arguing how to define fast. It's relative. To some, if their welfare check doesn't come on the day it's expected, they think it's tryanny. My brother is a postal carrier and had that very conversation with someone who got that handout.
Totally agreed.
 
Empirica-you are what Willis was talking bout.
Ohhhkay USCon; I'll bite__Who is "Willis" and what was he/she/it talking about?

(I'm hoping it's something good cuz I like you; so don't blow it)
 
What? 'more powerful weapon' doesn't mean empowerment? To empower means to give power to, no?

Yes, that what I thought we were talking about in the thread. A more powerful weapon is just a bigger club; not necessarily a better tool for fighting.
 
You can't be sufficiently armed to resist a tyrannical government in this country because our government, should it ever decide to become tyrannical, is always going to be armed significantly better than the resistance.

Only a true civil war, where the government splits fairly evenly and both sides take along the weaponry the government possesses, would allow a chance for victory from the "resistance" side.

In that case, it wouldn't be resistance to tyranny, because the side that is considered tyrannical would not have enough authority (due to the split) in order to actually be tyrannical. It would only become a tyrannical government if it actually wins the civil war.

But if the government made the shift to tyranny without splitting up, any armed resistance by the people would be futile due to the disproportion of armament.

Yes you can be sufficiently armed to deter a tyrannical government. This is both in a collective sense and an individual sense. Asymmetrical warfare works. Notice ISIS and Al-Qaida on down through time there are many examples of small bands or individuals who successfully resisted tyrannical governments. Most have been groups granted, but the same principles apply regardless. It all boils down to how much cost can be extracted and how willing a transgressor wishes to pay that cost. Deterrence depends on a potential enemy knowing that the cost for engaging is steep and most likely unfruitful.

Weaponry is not just guns and missiles those are just tools. Anything can be used as a weapon. The true weapon is a man. The most dangerous weapons system on the face of this earth is one pissed off hairless monkey, that has broad knowledge and the skill to use it. They find weakness and exploit. They are multiple use. They are unpredictable.
 
Notice ISIS and Al-Qaida on down through time there are many examples of small bands or individuals who successfully resisted tyrannical governments.

That's just it, these groups did not successfully resist tyrannical governments. Saddam was a tyrant, and groups like these couldn't do **** against him. It wasn't until we deposed the tyrant that these groups gained power. Why? Because we do not run the region as a tyrant does.
 
You can't be sufficiently armed to resist a tyrannical government in this country because our government, should it ever decide to become tyrannical, is always going to be armed significantly better than the resistance.

Only a true civil war, where the government splits fairly evenly and both sides take along the weaponry the government possesses, would allow a chance for victory from the "resistance" side.

In that case, it wouldn't be resistance to tyranny, because the side that is considered tyrannical would not have enough authority (due to the split) in order to actually be tyrannical. It would only become a tyrannical government if it actually wins the civil war.

But if the government made the shift to tyranny without splitting up, any armed resistance by the people would be futile due to the disproportion of armament.

Save your appeasement and doom hand wringing for elsewhere. Its not for you to decide whats acceptable.
 
Ohhhkay USCon; I'll bite__Who is "Willis" and what was he/she/it talking about?

(I'm hoping it's something good cuz I like you; so don't blow it)

It's a good thing, meant to be funny-it means you are dead on. Didn't you watch Diffrent Strokes?

i_am_what_willis-base.png
 
That's just it, these groups did not successfully resist tyrannical governments. Saddam was a tyrant, and groups like these couldn't do **** against him. It wasn't until we deposed the tyrant that these groups gained power. Why? Because we do not run the region as a tyrant does.

Pretty myopic argument. Many of them did not exist under Saddam, and who ever said guns alone are a guarantee of resistance let alone victory?

Besides, many of this same group are successfully resisting Assad as well as American military forces in Afghanistan, and probably Iraq.

There are no guarantees in life, despite the lefts wishes. In my view a fighting chance trumps chance.
 
That's just it, these groups did not successfully resist tyrannical governments. Saddam was a tyrant, and groups like these couldn't do **** against him. It wasn't until we deposed the tyrant that these groups gained power. Why? Because we do not run the region as a tyrant does.


Let me ask you this. Given a choice, what would you do? Would you choose to arm yourself?

For me the second amendment isn't about defending against tyranny. Its about the daily visible enforcement of my rights. That is the main reason to carry for me. Self defense, tyranny are distant secondary considerations. For me the gun the knife their display is a political statement, which says **** with me at your peril. If I am armed or not it matters not to me, because wherever I go, I AM THE weapon everything and everybody in my environment are simply tools for me to manipulate for my and families defense as necessary. I don't need a gun, they are simply a political tool for me as well as a hobby.

I am water, I flow, I crash, I erode, I corrode, I break, I evaporate, I transform, I am everywhere, I am nowhere, I am water.
 
Back
Top Bottom