Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

General Discussion

Showing Original Post only (View all)

DetlefK

(16,423 posts)
Tue Dec 18, 2012, 01:17 PM Dec 2012

Bearing arms to fend of a tyrannic government... [View all]

We've all heard this particular argument in defense of the 2nd amendment:
People should be allowed to own arms, so they won't be defenseless when their government becomes tyrannic and turns to oppression.

Let's leave aside the fact that the government has electronic and long-range means to be oppressive that no gun can counter.
Let's leave aside the fact that a government does not turn into a tyranny over night.

How would this "tyranny" be defined? A bill you don't like?
Who is "government"? A legally elected official?
And how would you use your arms to stand up against the oppression? Present them in showcases as a stark reminder of your disapproval?

No.
You would kill people because you don't like, what particular politicians are doing.
You would kill to force them (and the general population) to follow policies you approve of instead.






I don't know what you think about this, but to me this sounds like the definition of terrorism.

22 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Tyranny: An organized effort to end slavery as a cherished tradition and way of life. Loudly Dec 2012 #1
After Kent State riqster Dec 2012 #2
I was thinking along the same lines KansDem Dec 2012 #3
It's a stupid, paranoid argument. The best control against bad gov't is voting. Bucky Dec 2012 #4
2A is about an individual's RKBA for self defense. Congress has all the authority it needs for the jody Dec 2012 #5
No, actually, it isn't Spider Jerusalem Dec 2012 #8
Thanks for your opinion but DC v Heller defines the law and 2A is about individual self-defense. Get jody Dec 2012 #9
Until such a time as it's reviewed by a later Court decision. Spider Jerusalem Dec 2012 #10
Dissents by Stevens & Breyer cite PA(1776) & VT(1777) constitutions that declare natural, inherent, jody Dec 2012 #11
You're extremely wrong Spider Jerusalem Dec 2012 #12
Read the PA & VT constitutions that use those words. Stevens acknowledged those constitutions. jody Dec 2012 #15
No, actually, it isn't Spider Jerusalem Dec 2012 #18
What do you mean with your general statement "No, actually, it isn't"? nt jody Dec 2012 #19
"isn't indisputably an inalienable right". Spider Jerusalem Dec 2012 #20
I believe McDonald v. Chicago did incorporate the Second in the Fourteenth, see wikipedia jody Dec 2012 #22
I guess Marinedem Dec 2012 #6
That doesn't hold any water. DetlefK Dec 2012 #7
You make the assumption that elections will always be fair Xithras Dec 2012 #16
Morality and legality aren't the same. DetlefK Dec 2012 #21
That's how this country was formed, though. It's hard to reconcile. nt Romulox Dec 2012 #13
Don't forget reason #2 the coming race war. Ganja Ninja Dec 2012 #14
They need reminded that Red Dawn is not a documentary. n/t cynatnite Dec 2012 #17
Latest Discussions»General Discussion»Bearing arms to fend of a...