Guns as "Defense against Tyranny" is stupid.

[LordKiran]

So what with all the hub-bub about politicians being shot, I feel this is as good a time as ever to bring this up: The entire idea that people need guns as defense against tyrannical politicians is stupid and makes no sense.

Let's follow this idea to it's logical conclusion and destroy it with a single question. Who gets to decide what tyranny is and who is tyrannical? Seriously think about this, who gets to decide? The people? If it's the people then what does that mean? Do we all get to individually decide who is a tyrant and take measures as we see fit? Doesn't seem conducive to a stable and well functioning society....So who gets to decide? The government? I suppose that's the same thing in a certain light but then that defeats the point if the people in positions of authority get to tell you if they're being tyrannical or not.

Truth be told, there is no answer! This is because the statement "We need guns to defend against the tyranny of the state." is just a statement that sounds nice as a political talking point but doesn't actually mean anything or make any sense if you really think about it. I'm sick and tired of people saying this and I wish this stupid talking point would just go away!

 

[Nice Squirrel]

So what with all the hub-bub about politicians being shot, I feel this is as good a time as ever to bring this up: The entire idea that people need guns as defense against tyrannical politicians is stupid and makes no sense.

Let's follow this idea to it's logical conclusion and destroy it with a single question. Who gets to decide what tyranny is and who is tyrannical? Seriously think about this, who gets to decide? The people? If it's the people then what does that mean? Do we all get to individually decide who is a tyrant and take measures as we see fit? Doesn't seem conducive to a stable and well functioning society....So who gets to decide? The government? I suppose that's the same thing in a certain light but then that defeats the point if the people in positions of authority get to tell you if they're being tyrannical or not.

Augustus will decide.

 

[TSwizzle]

So what with all the hub-bub about politicians being shot, I feel this is as good a time as ever to bring this up: The entire idea that people need guns as defense against tyrannical politicians is stupid and makes no sense.

Let's follow this idea to it's logical conclusion and destroy it with a single question. Who gets to decide what tyranny is and who is tyrannical? Seriously think about this, who gets to decide? The people? If it's the people then what does that mean? Do we all get to individually decide who is a tyrant and take measures as we see fit? Doesn't seem conducive to a stable and well functioning society....So who gets to decide? The government? I suppose that's the same thing in a certain light but then that defeats the point if the people in positions of authority get to tell you if they're being tyrannical or not.

Truth be told, there is no answer! This is because the statement "We need guns to defend against the tyranny of the state." is just a statement that sounds nice as a political talking point but doesn't actually mean anything or make any sense if you really think about it. I'm sick and tired of people saying this and I wish this stupid talking point would just go away!

As far as the USA is concerned I think you are probably right. Elsewhere in the world, e.g. Syria, I think there is some validity to standing up to tyranny with guns etc.

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

Let's follow this idea to it's logical conclusion and destroy it with a single question. Who gets to decide what tyranny is and who is tyrannical? Seriously think about this, who gets to decide? The people? If it's the people then what does that mean? Do we all get to individually decide who is a tyrant and take measures as we see fit? Doesn't seem conducive to a stable and well functioning society....So who gets to decide? The government? I suppose that's the same thing in a certain light but then that defeats the point if the people in positions of authority get to tell you if they're being tyrannical or not.

Interesting question. I assume you would think that in first world countries that the circumstances where a person would need to take up arms against the government would never happen? Being part of the "civilized world" as it is called, our governments would never stoop so low as to need an active armed resistance?

Due to all of the hyperbolic Hitler comparisons recently I have been considering the status of an anti-tyranny German circa 1937. People often wonder why the average German didn't do more to stop Hitler. What if some lone gunman were able to take him down? I think I've figured out the answer to that question.

Did the shooter at the Republican Baseball Game think of himself as in a situation similar to a 1937 anti-tyranny German? Another interesting question.

 

[Elixir]

Did the shooter at the Republican Baseball Game think of himself as in a situation similar to a 1937 anti-tyranny German? Another interesting question.

Probably so. If that is the case, I wonder whence he derived most of his encouragement. I posted the following on another thread, but will repeat it here, as I have seen much more enthusiasm for "2nd amendment solutions" from the right than from the left:



This kind of populist pandering will predictably result in people feeling entitled to take violent action on their own behalf.

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

Did the shooter at the Republican Baseball Game think of himself as in a situation similar to a 1937 anti-tyranny German? Another interesting question.

Probably so. If that is the case, I wonder whence he derived most of his encouragement. I posted the following on another thread, but will repeat it here, as I have seen much more enthusiasm for "2nd amendment solutions" from the right than from the left:

This kind of populist pandering will predictably result in people feeling entitled to take violent action on their own behalf.

I see this pattern often on many different issues. One party "talks the talk" and the other party "walks the walk." Over and over, and this is part of the pattern, the one that talks is seen as the party that is in favor of that issue. This happens in both directions both of the parties in power.

 

[Ford]

The entire idea that people need guns as defense against tyrannical politicians is stupid and makes no sense.

It makes perfect sense.

From a marketing standpoint.

The people who manufacture and sell firearms (as well as the organizations like the NRA that help) know full well that weekend warriors armed with "assault-style rifles" would be no match for professional soldiers with actual assault rifles, but they're not in the business of fighting tyranny.

They're trying to sell guns.

More to the point, they're trying to sell multiple guns to their (no pun intended) target audience. The people who honestly believe that their little arsenal will one day be used in the "fight against tyranny" are the perfect customers, because they'll buy not just a rifle, but a rifle designed to look like a military weapon, and they'll buy more than one if they can afford it.

At some point the gun industry realized that they could increase market share by selling people more guns than they needed. Unless you're a collector, you need...what? A good deer rifle. A shotgun for duck hunting. Maybe another small gauge one for knocking down clay pigeons. A handgun if you're feeling the need for self defense. One gun for each purpose and then you've got enough.

Fighting against tyranny? Well you're gonna need more than just one good deer rifle there, son. You're gonna need this here Bushmaster. Evil 'ole government's pretty powerful...better get two. And one more in camo. You can never be too well-armed for when the jack-booted thugs come for you, right?

 

[KeepTalking]

So what with all the hub-bub about politicians being shot, I feel this is as good a time as ever to bring this up: The entire idea that people need guns as defense against tyrannical politicians is stupid and makes no sense.

Let's follow this idea to it's logical conclusion and destroy it with a single question. Who gets to decide what tyranny is and who is tyrannical? Seriously think about this, who gets to decide? The people? If it's the people then what does that mean? Do we all get to individually decide who is a tyrant and take measures as we see fit? Doesn't seem conducive to a stable and well functioning society....So who gets to decide? The government? I suppose that's the same thing in a certain light but then that defeats the point if the people in positions of authority get to tell you if they're being tyrannical or not.

Truth be told, there is no answer! This is because the statement "We need guns to defend against the tyranny of the state." is just a statement that sounds nice as a political talking point but doesn't actually mean anything or make any sense if you really think about it. I'm sick and tired of people saying this and I wish this stupid talking point would just go away!

It's not going away in the USA any time soon, and I am surprised you haven't hit upon the reason. The reason is because that is how our country started. The founding fathers stood up to the tyranny of the British government by using a well armed populace. At least at first, it was very much armed civilians confronting a professional military. Of course, the power base of that professional military was an ocean away without the assistance of modern military transport and communications, but the history of that conflict is still with us today. Until that history gets reversed by a more recent example of good old American boys with their guns getting shellacked by the army of a perceived tyrant, they are going to imagine that they are just as good as George Washington when it comes to standing up to tyranny, and aint nothin' gonna tell 'em different.

 

[Elixir]

So what with all the hub-bub about politicians being shot, I feel this is as good a time as ever to bring this up: The entire idea that people need guns as defense against tyrannical politicians is stupid and makes no sense.

Let's follow this idea to it's logical conclusion and destroy it with a single question. Who gets to decide what tyranny is and who is tyrannical? Seriously think about this, who gets to decide? The people? If it's the people then what does that mean? Do we all get to individually decide who is a tyrant and take measures as we see fit? Doesn't seem conducive to a stable and well functioning society....So who gets to decide? The government? I suppose that's the same thing in a certain light but then that defeats the point if the people in positions of authority get to tell you if they're being tyrannical or not.

Truth be told, there is no answer! This is because the statement "We need guns to defend against the tyranny of the state." is just a statement that sounds nice as a political talking point but doesn't actually mean anything or make any sense if you really think about it. I'm sick and tired of people saying this and I wish this stupid talking point would just go away!

It's not going away in the USA any time soon, and I am surprised you haven't hit upon the reason. The reason is because that is how our country started. The founding fathers stood up to the tyranny of the British government by using a well armed populace. At least at first, it was very much armed civilians confronting a professional military. Of course, the power base of that professional military was an ocean away without the assistance of modern military transport and communications, but the history of that conflict is still with us today. Until that history gets reversed by a more recent example of good old American boys with their guns getting shellacked by the army of a perceived tyrant, they are going to imagine that they are just as good as George Washington when it comes to standing up to tyranny, and aint nothin' gonna tell 'em different.

Spot on.
Next question: Who is pandering to that audience?
I think we know...

 

[fromderinside]

So you get a gun. So what. The government has a Jacob's Ladder of more lethal weapons it can use against you and you'd not ever get a chance to use your little big cartridge pop gun. You'd need a government like the Chinese government with a military at the time of Tienanmen Square to stop them. Look at what that did. Nothing. The government continued as before.

How you ask? They offered incentive for effort. Wallah. Everybody got a new car.

Seriously, the only was to defeat a corrupt or repressive government is to mass resist passively to the point where they just give up. They're not going to kill everybody because they'd have nothing left to bully. Hell, our governments doing that for us right now by giving more and more to those who pay them to stay in power. Can despair be far away? How do you think Soviet Union Collapsed?

This idealist eighteenth-nineteenth century notions are just a f'n wast of mental and emotional space as well as a good number of more or less innocent bodies.

I'm pretty sure we aren't Russian serfs.

 

[LordKiran]

So what with all the hub-bub about politicians being shot, I feel this is as good a time as ever to bring this up: The entire idea that people need guns as defense against tyrannical politicians is stupid and makes no sense.

Let's follow this idea to it's logical conclusion and destroy it with a single question. Who gets to decide what tyranny is and who is tyrannical? Seriously think about this, who gets to decide? The people? If it's the people then what does that mean? Do we all get to individually decide who is a tyrant and take measures as we see fit? Doesn't seem conducive to a stable and well functioning society....So who gets to decide? The government? I suppose that's the same thing in a certain light but then that defeats the point if the people in positions of authority get to tell you if they're being tyrannical or not.

Truth be told, there is no answer! This is because the statement "We need guns to defend against the tyranny of the state." is just a statement that sounds nice as a political talking point but doesn't actually mean anything or make any sense if you really think about it. I'm sick and tired of people saying this and I wish this stupid talking point would just go away!

It's not going away in the USA any time soon, and I am surprised you haven't hit upon the reason. The reason is because that is how our country started. The founding fathers stood up to the tyranny of the British government by using a well armed populace. At least at first, it was very much armed civilians confronting a professional military. Of course, the power base of that professional military was an ocean away without the assistance of modern military transport and communications, but the history of that conflict is still with us today. Until that history gets reversed by a more recent example of good old American boys with their guns getting shellacked by the army of a perceived tyrant, they are going to imagine that they are just as good as George Washington when it comes to standing up to tyranny, and aint nothin' gonna tell 'em different.

I know why it happens. That's not what I'm talking about when I call it stupid and nonsensical.

 

[braces_for_impact]

People like this idea because it's full of glory and patriotism. I'd prefer honestly myself, just say you like your fucking guns because they make you happy. In today's world, in our country, you and your rifle, shotgun, assault rifle and semi-auto pistol will be toasty crispy when a hellfire missile from a drone hits you from 20 miles away. You will not have even seen the face of your attacker. You most likely won't even have time to shit your pants. This is not 1776 or even 1886. If the country is so bad off that the military is killing armed civilians of some sort of resistance, your children may remember that proud moment when you held your gun high, screamed "Wolverines!" and then got obliterated by a guy playing a video game who doesn't give a fuck about your redneck self reliance.

If guns equaled freedom drug dealers wouldn't be filling today's prisons, and that's with the government operating with restraint.

 

[Elixir]

 

[KeepTalking]

It's not going away in the USA any time soon, and I am surprised you haven't hit upon the reason. The reason is because that is how our country started. The founding fathers stood up to the tyranny of the British government by using a well armed populace. At least at first, it was very much armed civilians confronting a professional military. Of course, the power base of that professional military was an ocean away without the assistance of modern military transport and communications, but the history of that conflict is still with us today. Until that history gets reversed by a more recent example of good old American boys with their guns getting shellacked by the army of a perceived tyrant, they are going to imagine that they are just as good as George Washington when it comes to standing up to tyranny, and aint nothin' gonna tell 'em different.

I know why it happens. That's not what I'm talking about when I call it stupid and nonsensical.

I think knowing the why can help one make sense of it, but I do agree it is rather stupid.

 

[Trausti]

So what with all the hub-bub about politicians being shot, I feel this is as good a time as ever to bring this up: The entire idea that people need guns as defense against tyrannical politicians is stupid and makes no sense.

Let's follow this idea to it's logical conclusion and destroy it with a single question. Who gets to decide what tyranny is and who is tyrannical? Seriously think about this, who gets to decide? The people? If it's the people then what does that mean? Do we all get to individually decide who is a tyrant and take measures as we see fit? Doesn't seem conducive to a stable and well functioning society....So who gets to decide? The government? I suppose that's the same thing in a certain light but then that defeats the point if the people in positions of authority get to tell you if they're being tyrannical or not.

Truth be told, there is no answer! This is because the statement "We need guns to defend against the tyranny of the state." is just a statement that sounds nice as a political talking point but doesn't actually mean anything or make any sense if you really think about it. I'm sick and tired of people saying this and I wish this stupid talking point would just go away!

As far as the USA is concerned I think you are probably right. Elsewhere in the world, e.g. Syria, I think there is some validity to standing up to tyranny with guns etc.

Syria is a good analog. The resistance rose up against Assad with small arms. And that's still going on. It'd be nice to think that the relative stability we enjoy in the West is guaranteed to continue forever. But even a poor student of history knows not to get your hopes up.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

Didn't the arms come from outside that made the resistance a serious threat?

 

[Trausti]

Didn't the arms come from outside that made the resistance a serious threat?

Arms from outside came later. You don't need a lot to start a ruckus.

 

[bilby]

If guns equaled freedom drug dealers wouldn't be filling today's prisons, and that's with the government operating with restraint.

QFT.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

Didn't the arms come from outside that made the resistance a serious threat?

Arms from outside came later. You don't need a lot to start a ruckus.

That's not what I asked, though, because I asked if they were a "serious threat" only when they got arms from outside. You can cause a ruckus with a single gun, it doesn't mean you can defend your country's civil liberties...

 

[Opoponax]

It took years for the U.S. and British militaries to get the Iraqi insurgency under control. And that was only by a large surge of troops in very concentrated areas. This notion that the U.S. military can land any number of troops in your town, call in a guided missile strike on your house, call in an airstrike on your house, etc. at will is simple mathematical bullshit.

Afghanistan still rages on. U.S. troops were killed there this week. It's only been what, going on 16 years now?

History has shown time and time again that civilians with small arms, a little help, know-how, and frankly, a willingness to die, can wreak havoc on a modern major army. I personally would rather die than say for example, live in a nation run by Trumptardians.

Conservative Americans relish the idea of stamping out people like us. If you think the GOP leadership is bad, then please, any of you are free to go around the web and take a good look at the active forums and the people who support that leadership. We're easy targets and they'd like nothing more than to show us exactly that. The below average IQ angry citizen informant, the authoritarian goon who would carry out any order, the deeply self-righteous religious whose god would sanction any action; all the same creepy types that have aided authoritarian governments exist in the U.S. in their tens of millions. And they have a leader who at this very fucking moment is tweeting out their own favorite conspiracy theories to them (see Hillary sells uranium to Russians). That's happening today.

And Trump hates our free press. The only ones who hate it more than him are his followers. Take away the press and the dominoes fall. Does anyone think a Reichstag Fire in the U.S. is impossible? Do you think it wise to put your faith in the American voter? The GOP leadership? The GOP controls 32 state governments and all three branches of the federal government. We're one election away from them having enough power to change the Constitution. And as we've seen, when it comes to voting, the conservatives show up and liberals are lazy.

So imagine that for a moment and ponder if, by what you've written on the internet, or in whatever manner applies, if they might come for you. And make no mistake, there are many people who would gladly come for you. My only assertion of certainty as I apply it to myself is that I wouldn't make it easy for them. And hopefully, there are a lot of others wouldn't just fucking roll over and do nothing.