Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Hunter's Campfire Gun ownership to protect against tyrrany

So my question is: Does anyone really think that gun ownership will protect you from a well organized government force?

I enjoy studying recent history. Argentina's economic collapse, the riots in Greece, Tunisia and France. Look what happened to bring the citizens together and into the streets. In 'Nam, we beat the North militarily in every battle but still lost the war. Learn from these things and you would do well. There is political, geographical and other divisions in our country to keep us divided. These divisions are oft supported and encouraged by the media.

Bravo, well said.

GTC

Linkey thing

"When Democracy Becomes Tyranny

I STILL get to vote."

Now you all know me, and you all know I�m as pro-gun as one is likely to find. But I would like to have an intellectual debate on the issue of civilian gun ownership as a defense against government tyranny.

In the Federalist papers (I used to know specifically which one, I think it was 9, but memory fails me), there was the issue of gun ownership and (Hamilton I think?) proposed the concept that the 2nd Amendment would protect the citizens. See, all the way back to the formation of our constitution the South was worried about the North having a standing army because they figured at some point that standing army would be turned against the South (I guess their fears were well justified). And Hamilton (if I have that right) said that the 2nd Amendment would ensure that the North could never raise an army that would ever come close to the numbers of armed citizens in the South, and therefore invasion would just a fool hearted gesture. Well as we all know, that wasn�t the case. So it would see that one of the primary reasons for the 2nd Amendment in the US completely failed.

Then this morning I�m reading a very interesting article in Foreign Policy which you can find here: http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2011/01/11/armed_but_not_necessarily_dangerous?page=0,6

Page 7 brings up the case of Iraq and how people in Iraq have always been not only armed, but very well armed; including Assault Rifles and as we all know, RPG�s can always be found in the Middle East (it�s like their trading currency ). Well, Saddam Hussein was very successful in oppressing from the position of being a minority (meaning he was quasi-Sunni, while the majority is Shia, and the rest are Kurd). Gun ownership didn�t save them from very heavy oppression.

So my question is: Does anyone really think that gun ownership will protect you from a well organized government force?

Without gun ownership, we will no longer be citizens but rather subjects.

It's not the armies that we need to have fearful of the armed citizen, just our Politicians.

It worked out well for the Americans during the revolutionary war. They won. England's military was certainly a well organized government force. America did not have a standing army before the war. They had a multitude of armed civilians who got tired of the tyranny they were living under, and that militia fought against the opressive government force. An army was formed, from the civilians, and (with the militia) they fought against this well organized government force and won. So, in answer to your question...it IS possible. One thing is certain though...had the civilians not been armed...they would not have been able to accomplish what they did.

Linkey thing

"Progressive" historical amnesiac sez: "You want a gun so you can kill police or soldiers. Are you out of your minds?"
The Borg bleats, "Resistance is futile."

"Guns For Killing Cops and Soldiers?"

When discussing issues of gun rights/gun control, it amazes me how people argue for needing a gun to fight the police or the military. What you're saying is you want a gun so you can kill police or soldiers. Are you out of your minds?

Two hundred and thirty five years ago, armed resurrection was possible. Maybe even 100 years ago. But today, with the weapons the government possesses, it is totally impossible. The weapons that can take down a government that are threatened, that you should be fighting for are the internet, words, free media...

We're never going to be in a situation where using guns to fight police is a viable, reasonable or sane option. The fact is, we have to face the problems we face with ways that can actually work. Martin Luther King faced oppressive injustice and incredible corruption and won using non-violence. People owned guns in Nazi Germany. It didn't help.



There he goes, another collectivist extrapolating from his own cowardice again. Obviously he's never heard of the armed veterans of the Deacons for Defense and Justice who guarded MLK's saintly ass at night from the Klan. "Non-violence?" (Insert snort.)

"What you're saying is you want a gun so you can kill police or soldiers. Are you out of your minds?" The answers to those two statements/questions are, in order, "yes" and no."



This is Reinhard Heydrich. He was a policeman.



This is what his car looked like after Czech resistance fighters assassinated him.


These are soldiers of the Wehrmacht Feld Polizei after an entire village was wiped out in retribution. No doubt somewhere in this welter of dead innocents you could have found at least one believer in non-violence.



When police and soldiers conduct themselves as butchers of innocents, you bet your ass I want a firearm to defend myself.


This is an American religious community wiped out by federal policemen and soldiers of Delta Force on 19 April 1995.



Functional difference between Waco and Lidice?

Questions?