So with the gun control debates raging, one of the things I hear the most is that the greatest weapon we have against tyranny is the right to arms.

 

For me, I put that at about 3 or 4 if not less. I place education, voting, forming groups, a free media, the right to openly voice opinions and other such things at a higher place for keeping tyranny at bay than firearms. Basically, the first amendment being first for a reason.

 

What about you?

Views: 343

Replies to This Discussion

To be fair there are a number on the right who advocate rebellion or succession of Texas for just about any "injustice." These are for the most part under educated over emotional red neck hick types, not anarchists.

-Rick Perry is the greatest cause he got an "R" by his name.

Maybe it would be good if they did revolt so we could clean out the gene pool.

Yes all of those things are more helpful at keeping away tyranny. Those things can easily be taken away in an instant if the government chooses to do so. The second amendment was intended to maintain the right to have a free media, freedom of speech and all the other freedoms and rights that you put ahead of the second amendment.

It is like the pane of glass in your window or the deadbolt and the thin strip of pine in your door frame are more important in keeping out burglars. Yes it does a good job but anyone who really wants to get in can do so easily so you need something to reinforce those things that can easily be outdone by people who would do you harm. For some people it's a dog for others it's a gun, bat or security system. To say that since you have your glass windows closed and your deadbolt locked you will not be robbed is just asking for trouble.

I agree.  The right to bear arms may have been a valuable weapon against tyranny 200 years ago.  But if our government were inclined to impose a police state on the civilian population in 2013, all of the AR-15s in world aren't going to make any difference against an M1 Abrams and an MQ-9 Reaper armed with hellfire missiles.   

And yet, Al Quaeda in Iraq and the Taliban still seem to be chugging along just fine without armor or air support. 

150-million people with small arms can make a big dent in even the best military. Especially considering the segment of that 150-million that is bound to be the Abrams drivers and Reaper pilots the government would be depending on.  It wouldn't be pretty, but I wouldn't bet against a motivated population ... conventional wisdom in the 1770s was that we couldn't beat the Brits.

A gun behind every blade of grass.

JB

And, in your world, the majority of our military turns on its own parents, brothers, sisters, and children, in abeyance of a clearly illegal order?

 

I read, a while back, that American soldiers are some of the only soldiers in the world, when given an order, to ask why.

 

Take a look at what the local sheriffs are *already* doing as a reaction to the criminals in our government.  I expect that a lot of our law-enforcement and even military would simply turn on their heels and say, clearly, and with a unified voice, no.

I would think Mexico or the evil canadians long before the middle east. It is one thing for them to funnel to neighboring countries and something totally different all the way to us. I could be wrong though.

I would think a stable economy should be #1. 

When it comes to shooting, it's gone too far already.  I too would put freedom of speech first, and freedom of assembly.  But I'm happy to have all these things honored.  It'd be a shame if we kept only a few of the most important ones, and found out we needed one more!

I agree that freedom of speech and education are prominent, the most effective, and the most desirable tools  for keeping tyranny at bay. However, those freedoms have no real teeth. It is a variation of the armed deterrent scenario.  Without some "muscle" to protect those front line freedoms from tyranny they will be swept aside without a seconds thought. Armed deterrent may at least give a moments pause. Is it really too far out of reason to assume that without some real means of protection those freedoms they could be easily ripped away?

From within? I actually do see that is a bit out of reason. If our media works as it should. If we all vote based on information and education that we have sought out. If we continue to speak out freely. If we continue to join up and create groups of like minded to share our voice with. I see a very long struggle for tyranny to honestly take over, and definetly not easily.

From without? That is a very honest and true threat. But one I also see that we have grown a standing army to somewhat supplement

To the individual? In as far as other individuals can easily inflict a form of tyranny on another within our system, I see it as vital that we have the right to arm and defend ourselves.

As much as it saddens me to say, I don't have as much faith in my fellow Americans at the moment as you seem to.  Every point you make; non-biased media, well informed and educated citizen voters, caring enough to get involved, I see as severely lacking in our society.

What I do see is a majority of citizens who are attracted to easy answers and soft solutions, who believe the "commonly held notion"  rather than tearing themselves away from their entertainments to research issues on their own, and who, as long as their lives are comfortable, really couldn't care about political philosophy, history, or individual freedoms.

Then again, I'm stuck in Ohio at the moment. maybe the rest of the country is not as abysmal.

RSS

Latest Activity

Shane replied to Pale Horse's discussion Unpopular Political and Religious Opinions in the group The Great Debate
"Race based medicine. I was also thinking of vaccines, a portion of their research has been shut down due to a backlash against antivaxxer-antiscience backlash."
6 minutes ago
Pale Horse replied to Pale Horse's discussion Unpopular Political and Religious Opinions in the group The Great Debate
"I was talking about Jill Stein."
12 minutes ago
Steve Dallas replied to Pale Horse's discussion Unpopular Political and Religious Opinions in the group The Great Debate
"Neither of the two left are against nuclear power."
24 minutes ago
John Muir replied to Braeden P.D.'s discussion Footage of Warfare
"This video is just war porn. Nothing educational or redeeming about it. Lots of footage of the takbir (muslims yelling "God is Great" - "Allahu Akbar"), without an explanation.  Lots of people we support call out the takbir…"
24 minutes ago
Pale Horse replied to Pale Horse's discussion Unpopular Political and Religious Opinions in the group The Great Debate
"Also, there are some decent arguments for regulating GMOs. Namely the example given with monarch butterflies. I am not one of those weirdos who thinks GMO crops will cause the apocalypse, but I think we should examine any repercussions tampering…"
26 minutes ago
Pale Horse replied to Pale Horse's discussion Unpopular Political and Religious Opinions in the group The Great Debate
"Yep, let us not forget which candidate thinks that nuclear power will turn the Fallout series into non-fiction. Except for in DC, where it is already pretty much the Capital Wasteland."
30 minutes ago
Sir replied to Pale Horse's discussion Unpopular Political and Religious Opinions in the group The Great Debate
"I do.  I also want to know about those fields of medical research."
35 minutes ago
Pale Horse commented on Herb Munson's group The Great Debate
"PS If you google his name with Melissa Nelson's you can see that he supported her campaign."
38 minutes ago

© 2016   Created by Brett McKay.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service