The "Tyrannical Government" argument....

Before starting, I have no problem with gun ownership. I own myself and absolutely believe in the right to own firearms for self protection. I do not think that means anyone should be able to own firearms or that every type of firearm should be legal. Regulation and control is needed.

That statement can be argued in many different directions but the one I would like to focus on is owning weapons to defend yourself from a Tyrannical Government. This statement I find ridiculous for two reasons:

1.) For the government to turn on it's own people the military would have to be involved. Members of the military would have to march through the streets of the US and turn their weapons on the citizens. I have been in the military for 14 years and I can say, without a shadow or a doubt, that this will NEVER happen. I don't know a single person that I have served with that could ever be convinced to do this. Flat out, it will never happen with the volunteer force we have. Only nut jobs believe this might happen

2.) If in some conspiracy theory, fantasy world, this did happen, you can buy all the AR 15s you want but you're getting fucked up and quick. If the US Military went balls out on the public we're all dead.

So I think the Tyrannical Government argument is pretty moot when it comes to a reason for gun ownership.

It isn't.

Look at the open violation of the US constitution in the name of security.

If they will openly violate the 4th amendment in the name of security, they will do anything in the name of security.

Watch the movie the Siege, and tell me that martial law with US troops on US street corners wouldn't happen if we got told ISIS has a nuke on US soil.

That may sound extreme, but how extreme does economic collapse, followed by major social unrest the police couldn't handle, followed by martial law, and US deployment of the military within the country, sound?

If their are riots burning cities across the country, you are going to refuse the order to deploy on US soil?

You are full of shit and you know it.

As far as the US military owning the civilian population. On a open battlefield, of course. Using guerilla tactics, that million man army of the federal governments' is a knife showing up to an artillery fight.
 
Well ideally you don't try to overthrow the local government. In the case of no knock raids you defend yourself in the moment that state actors threaten your life but eventually you would surrender to the legal system and hope a jury of your peers would see things your way.

In the case of the Jim Crow South, often local police departments would simply allow groups like the KKK to terrorize blacks and even if racial murders did get the attention of local law enforcement in many cases the murderer would be acquitted by an all white jury. So in that instance resistance would mean defending yourself against the threats to your life and property through the 2nd amendment and a wider campaign of trying to agitate for change through the use of the 1st amendment and that's more or less what happened in the Jim Crow South.

I've heard of no knock raid victims being acquitted, although my guess would be that this is the exception rather than the rule.

I'll confess, I don't know much about legal procedure, but it sounds like you are talking about jury nullification. I thought in cases where the law has been blatantly broken, regardless of how the jury views the morality of it, the judge just steps in and overrules? No?
 
I've heard of no knock raid victims being acquitted, although my guess would be that this is the exception rather than the rule.

I'll confess, I don't know much about legal procedure, but it sounds like you are talking about jury nullification. I thought in cases where the law has been blatantly broken, regardless of how the jury views the morality of it, the judge just steps in and overrules? No?
The govt. gives itself qualified immunity, this along a bunch of other "get out of jail free" cards littered throughout the law are why it is almost impossible to convict a cop.
 
I've heard of no knock raid victims being acquitted, although my guess would be that this is the exception rather than the rule.

I'll confess, I don't know much about legal procedure, but it sounds like you are talking about jury nullification. I thought in cases where the law has been blatantly broken, regardless of how the jury views the morality of it, the judge just steps in and overrules? No?
I'm not exactly entirely familiar with the law either but sometimes a grand jury will decide to not even charge a man who defends himself against a no knock raid on the basis that he was legitimately defending himself agaisnt what he reasonably perceived as a genuine threat.
 
this whole argument is highly nonsensical to me

mainly b/c it assumes that the US government in the event that they are confiscating weapons are going to Play Along Nicely and follow conventional rules of War....

uh no, this isn't Waco where one isolated incidient has the national/world media's eyes on it in a bubble. The entire nation would be Waco or Ruby Ridge, and the government has drones and shit.....



Not everyone in the government/military would go along with the plan tho. There would be spies on both sides, possible revolts and upheaval's within varying branches and so on.


Not to mention, if a large group of veterans that used to operate tanks, helicopters, planes and so on gets access to any of these things thru any sort of infiltration or even straight up invading a base.. the presence of so many knowledgeable and trained vets in this country would cause a lot of problems in this make believe scenario.


And that's not even mentioning the millions upon millions of armed citizens fighting on their own turf out numbering the military by a wide margin -if you believe the numbers on how many people potentially own firearms.


I could go into more depth, but there's no point because it won't happen. Not now anyway. No one here -military, government, nor citizens- is desperate to make something like this jump off.
 
this whole argument is highly nonsensical to me

mainly b/c it assumes that the US government in the event that they are confiscating weapons are going to Play Along Nicely and follow conventional rules of War....

uh no, this isn't Waco where one isolated incidient has the national/world media's eyes on it in a bubble. The entire nation would be Waco or Ruby Ridge, and the government has drones and shit.....

There's plenty of civilian drones out there.

Also:

 
this whole argument is highly nonsensical to me

mainly b/c it assumes that the US government in the event that they are confiscating weapons are going to Play Along Nicely and follow conventional rules of War....

uh no, this isn't Waco where one isolated incidient has the national/world media's eyes on it in a bubble. The entire nation would be Waco or Ruby Ridge, and the government has drones and shit.....

Let me take you through this. I am a guerilla fighter in occupied US territory. I have concealed my identity as such. I can hide amongst the civilian population.

Their is no Waco to surround with the governments superior fire power.

The government is defending everything. It's supply routes, it's command posts, food storage, weapons and ammo storage, transportation, individual soldiers are targets.

I don't have to defeat a occupying force. I only need to resist it, and engage in a war of attrition. Every successful attack on a soft target is a victory.

The government could not occupy 3,000 miles coast to coast of territory.

What I find absurd is the idea that the military could occupy the United States, not the idea that the military could defeat rifles on a open battlefield.
 
I've heard of no knock raid victims being acquitted, although my guess would be that this is the exception rather than the rule.

I'll confess, I don't know much about legal procedure, but it sounds like you are talking about jury nullification. I thought in cases where the law has been blatantly broken, regardless of how the jury views the morality of it, the judge just steps in and overrules? No?
There's a reason a lot of places don't use no-knock warrants anymore.

I have friends on the "warrant squad" in Seattle and they always knock, one dude knocked, announced it was Seattle PD and backed to the area outside the door frame and proceeded to see said door shredded by a 12 gauge is why they knock now.
 
I don't get how we have a second amendment discussion without putting it in clearly.

“A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."

This is written at a time when the revolutionaries are hiding guns and cannons from the British. Their intention seems almost guaranteed to be inclusive of military weapons. And for the sake of overthrowing and resisting a government. I believe the intention is to give the population access to the most powerful defenses available.

What I don't see currently is this well regulated militia. A bunch of randos buying assault rifles shotguns and pistols isn't a well regulated militia. It isn't even a militia. Its just randos with guns.

Some sort of national guardesque service is where those weapons belong. If this service was worth anything our military would be redundant and unnecessary. And if you can do something productive with your militia in the off time...

I'm also a believer in a mandatory national service if you want citizenship as an adult. You put in two years get given basic repair and maintenance type training and send young adults out in droves to clean up and repair their own communities. After a year give them basic policing powers while maintaining the focus on maintenance and repair of local community.

Have decent pay and benefits for those who stick around 3 or 4 years and use them as supervisors.

Finally pull your military and police with arrest and gun privileges from those that have been around for 5 years. You'll have already had years to see how these kids handle their power before giving them the ability to really fuck things up.
 
The instance you bring up with Katrina is VERY isolated and initiated by criminals. Yes, when the military is put into a situation where armed criminals are shooting at them then of course they will shoot back but that's not a Tyranical Government coming to take your life. That's military members defending themselves from fucking criminals!!!

Do you actually believe that the government would order the military to invade cities and towns across America and the military would just follow those orders? You would follow those orders? You would march into American towns reigning death upon civilians (non-criminals)?

If so you are a sack of shit. No one I know would ever follow suck an order.

Consider this.

When governments want soldiers to fire on civilians they don't call them citizens. They call them many things, but never citizens. Always call them other, never call them us.

You're imagining a scenario where a soldier is told to fire on some upstanding folks minding their own business. You are probably imagining someone you like as the victim. I want you to consider, very carefully, that this is a mistake.

When a government wants to kill its citizens, it isolates them, it paints them as the enemies of 'real' citizens, it makes hating them feel right.

The real moral test isn't whether you would shoot a citizen with whom you identified, if ordered to do so. The real test is whether you would shoot someone you despise, who has failed to comply with your (reasonable?) demands, whom you have been told, by people you trust, is the real enemy of your country.
 
Last edited:
Consider this.

When governments want soldiers to fire on civilians they don't call them citizens. They call them many things, but never citizens. Always call them other, never call them us.

You're imagining a scenario where a soldier is told to fire on some upstanding folks minding their own business. You are probably imagining someone you like as the victim. I want you to consider, very carefully, that this is a mistake.

When a government wants to kill it's its citizens, it isolates them, it paints them as the enemies of 'real' citizens, it makes hating them feel right.

The real moral test isn't whether you would shoot a citizen with whom you identified, if ordered to do so. The real test is whether you would shoot someone you despise, who has failed to comply with your (reasonable?) demands, whom you have been told, by people you trust, is the real enemy of your country.

Solid post.
People have a really confused idea about what it might look like if their government were turning tyrannical. Truth is, most people wouldn't even know it had happened.

Hence, it's a good idea to limit the faith and trust you put in your rulers, and the power you grant them.
 
I don't get how we have a second amendment discussion without putting it in clearly.

“A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."

This is written at a time when the revolutionaries are hiding guns and cannons from the British. Their intention seems almost guaranteed to be inclusive of military weapons. And for the sake of overthrowing and resisting a government. I believe the intention is to give the population access to the most powerful defenses available.

What I don't see currently is this well regulated militia. A bunch of randos buying assault rifles shotguns and pistols isn't a well regulated militia. It isn't even a militia. Its just randos with guns.

Some sort of national guardesque service is where those weapons belong. If this service was worth anything our military would be redundant and unnecessary. And if you can do something productive with your militia in the off time...

I'm also a believer in a mandatory national service if you want citizenship as an adult. You put in two years get given basic repair and maintenance type training and send young adults out in droves to clean up and repair their own communities. After a year give them basic policing powers while maintaining the focus on maintenance and repair of local community.

Have decent pay and benefits for those who stick around 3 or 4 years and use them as supervisors.

Finally pull your military and police with arrest and gun privileges from those that have been around for 5 years. You'll have already had years to see how these kids handle their power before giving them the ability to really fuck things up.

We got rid of our militia system in favor of more organized National Guard units with the Militia Act of 1903. This was fine for some time and no one actually cared, but it was eventually ruled that the people = militia based on the nomenclature of the 2nd and now they just make pretend everyone is a militia member.
 
You severely under estimate how retarded the alt-left really is as if this is somehow unbelievable.
I have never seen anyone here non-ironically say Trump is literally Hitler. It's always right-wingers using it as a strawman of how leftists actually feel about Trump.
 
I have never seen anyone here non-ironically say Trump is literally Hitler. It's always right-wingers using it as a strawman of how leftists actually feel about Trump.
Yea not here. We have reasonable leftists here........sometimes. Im talking about the real world not sherdog.
 
Yea not here. We have reasonable leftists here........sometimes. Im talking about the real world not sherdog.
Seriously though, I've never seen it said outside of Sherdog either, except in an ironic way. Again, by right wingers. I only see it being used as a joke and never seriously.
 
Seriously though, I've never seen it said outside of Sherdog either, except in an ironic way. Again, by right wingers. I only see it being used as a joke and never seriously.

https://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/11084210

"That said, a chill went down my spine when I saw private remarks from Chris Christie, regarding one of Donald Trump’s first moves, if he is elected. Reutersreports:

If he wins the presidency, Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump would seek to purge the federal government of officials appointed by Democratic President Barack Obama and could ask Congress to pass legislation making it easier to fire public workers, Trump ally, Chris Christie, said on Tuesday.

Why is this scary? It is literally one of the first moves made by Adolf Hitler, upon democratically attaining power."

This entire argument is asinine, but there are a number of articles comparing Trump to Hitler, in all seriousness.

The phrase "literally Hitler" comes from the right-wing mockery of these articles and posts.

The only takeaway from anyone using 'literally Hitler' unironically is that we are continuing to abuse the English language.
 
Like it or not Trumptards there are some similarities between Trump and Hitler, authoritarian personality for one.
 
Back
Top