Does gun ownership actually stop tyrannical government

Page 2 of 3 [ 37 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3  Next

ezbzbfcg2
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 15 Feb 2013
Age: 38
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,565
Location: New Jersey, USA

28 Jun 2021, 3:21 am

People, mostly unarmed, stormed the US Capitol. According to most of the posts on this website, such an action almost led to the complete overthrown of the US government. (As if far-flung federal agents, military personnel, government agency field offices, etc., would all submit to some yahoos that smashed some windows and trespassed in the Capitol Building. :roll: )

Yet, while the unarmed storming of the Capitol is equated with the whole US government almost being subverted and overthrown (as postulated by a lot of folks here on WP), possession of personal firearms couldn't possibly have any bearing on the government in power, and, therefore, firearms should be taken away since they serve no purpose regarding people's resistance to government.

So, according to WP, unarmed hooligans almost overthrew the government, but an armed populace couldn't possibly do so. Which is it with you people?? :huh:



auntblabby
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Feb 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 104,569
Location: the island of defective toy santas

28 Jun 2021, 3:27 am

the whole thing makes no sense to me, because i know for a GD FACT that if it was BLM protesting there even outside of the capitol, those flatfoots that were getting B!+ched out by those maga yahoos would have transformed into storm troopers putting out CS gas and smashing heads with batons with rubber bullets flyin', just as they did when trump ordered the same police force to put down a protest. i never understood why those cops were so WEAK in the presence of that right-wing mob. something is fishy in denmark.



ezbzbfcg2
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 15 Feb 2013
Age: 38
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,565
Location: New Jersey, USA

28 Jun 2021, 3:41 am

^Some Internet theories:

If you're LEFT of center, those cops were themselves racist, pro-Trump supporters. Or they were ordered not to harm white people the way they would PoC or white liberals.

If you're RIGHT of center, the DC establishment had intelligence of what would happen, but deliberately allowed it to occur to smear Trump and his supporters and show how dangerous they are.

Either way, no chance the whole of the Federal Government of the United States of America coast-to-coast would collapse regardless of who was busting up windows at the Capitol.



auntblabby
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Feb 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 104,569
Location: the island of defective toy santas

28 Jun 2021, 3:55 am

anyways, it was plain as day even to the dead, that it was allowed to happen, even encouraged.



ezbzbfcg2
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 15 Feb 2013
Age: 38
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,565
Location: New Jersey, USA

28 Jun 2021, 4:00 am

Yes. So, it wasn't that the protesters were all-powerful. Rather, an insider group allowed them to be hooligans. The way folks here talk, those protesters overpowered the Capitol Police all by themselves, and, --all by themselves--, had the power to overthrow the government. :?



Mr Reynholm
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 19 Feb 2019
Age: 55
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,215
Location: Tulsa, OK

28 Jun 2021, 9:09 am

Why do tyrannical governments not allow citizens to own guns?



funeralxempire
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 27 Oct 2014
Age: 36
Gender: Non-binary
Posts: 13,439
Location: I'm right here

28 Jun 2021, 1:32 pm

Mr Reynholm wrote:
Why do tyrannical governments not allow citizens to own guns?


The NSDAP loosened restrictions on gun ownership for citizens.

Even the Soviet Union allowed some degree of private ownership of guns. The restrictions were strictest between '35 and '53 but even during WWII there were private citizens who legally owned guns.


_________________
the problem with capitalism is that eventually you run out of other people's resources and cheap labour to exploit
戦争ではなく戦争と戦う


techstepgenr8tion
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 6 Feb 2005
Age: 41
Gender: Male
Posts: 22,104
Location: The 27th Path of Peh.

28 Jun 2021, 7:21 pm

So a hard thing for a lot of people to understand, although I do get the hint that enough people in this thread do, tyranny and control are games of thresholds.

With controlling a populace there has to be excuses that populace are willing to go along with, or at least a slight majority, if that populace is armed. The things you have to do in order to disarm and armed populace generally give away bad intent. Could the government roll right over their armed citizens with tanks, F-22's, drones, even nukes? Hell yeah!! ! The trouble with actually doing that, you'll get nowhere close to that sort of behavior as a democracy. A government that isn't autocratic relies on the faith of the people, siccing the military on the populace doesn't tend to go well in that regard - and at least as of today the UN still frowns on it.

In that sense the blunt violence vector toward tyranny is closed or at least made prohibitively expensive without an amazingly persuasive excuse for people to voluntarily give up their rights, and that's not really something most governments have the capacity to fabricate, it would be some truly bizarre change in the landscape like some new virus that can turn anyone into a mass shooter.

Is that the only vector for tyranny? Clearly not. We're seeing that corporate monopolies and decadent governments have a similar fetish for having as much asymmetric information on their populace and customer bases as possible, and you see as well that economics are a great way to control people - ie. keep as many people living paycheck to paycheck and if you control that paycheck, tell someone to jump they'll say 'How high', they don't have a choice. In a scary way the game of power is to take away freedom and keep other people back on their heals any way you can.

I think our biggest threat right now is a docile populace who gets sucked into tv, video games, and personal prestige too much to see or care about broader threats to their liberties, or at least in a country of over 300 million (US) there's a 'they' who'll do the brave and scary stuff and risk life and limb, no effort needed on their own part. I think they miss the part that they can be relied on to give these people ample room to fall for having dared to attempt reforms.


_________________
"The individual has always had to struggle to keep from being overwhelmed by the tribe. To be your own man is a hard business. If you try it, you'll be lonely often, and sometimes frightened. But no price is too high to pay for the privelege of owning yourself" - Rudyard Kipling


ASPartOfMe
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 25 Aug 2013
Age: 64
Gender: Male
Posts: 25,919
Location: Long Island, New York

29 Jun 2021, 11:06 pm

auntblabby wrote:
RetroGamer87 wrote:
auntblabby wrote:
RetroGamer87 wrote:
They always bring up tanks and fighter jets. Sometimes they even mention nukes. I don't think it would actually escalate that far.

just look back in our history, the first use of airplane bombing was when the town of tulsa basically EXTERMINATED its "black wall street." i put NOTHING past the PTB of this nation, the WHITE ptb.

And did the second amendment allow black wall street to mount a successful retaliation? I'm guessing, probably not.

the NRA is on record as having supported gun control when it suited them, IOW they did not object to the 1968 gun control act because it banned "saturday night specials" which primarily were used in black/brown communities. historically it has been comparatively hard for POC to legally obtain weapons.

The NRA and the Republicans in California supported gun control in reaction to the Black Panthers who cited the 2nd Amendment in defense against government tyranny.
The National Rifle Association supported the passage of a 1967 bill in the California legislature banning the open carry of loaded firearms in public.
Quote:
Social media postings noted that in contrast to their current policy of backing laws that allow citizens to openly carry loaded firearms in public, in 1967 the NRA supported a statewide ban on open carry in California after armed members of the Black Panther Party started patrolling city streets to counter police brutality. A Facebook meme hammered the point home with an image of Black Panthers brandishing weapons in the California state capitol:

It’s true that the Mulford Act, which prohibited anyone outside of law enforcement officers (and others explicitly authorized to do so) from carrying loaded firearms in public, was enacted largely in response to the militant activities of the Black Panther Party. It’s also true that the bill was written by a Republican legislator, California Assemblyman Don Mulford of Oakland, and was passed with the full backing of Republican governor Ronald Reagan and the National Rifle Association.

The bill was introduced in April 1967, six weeks after it had been reported that an armed group of Black Panthers acting as an escort for Malcolm X’s widow, Betty Shabazz, were involved in tense, nonviolent confrontations with airport security officers and police in San Francisco. As leftist writer Sol Stern later noted in Ramparts, “Local cops were dumbfounded to discover that there was no law which prohibited the Panthers from carrying loaded weapons so long as they were unconcealed, a legal fact which the Panthers had carefully researched.”

In a statement quoted by Associated Press, a Panther spokesman said, “The cops asked us what we were doing and we told them. ‘We’re exercising our constitutional rights and we’re not going to take any bull.'”

The Mulford Act was designed to impose a limits on those very constitutional rights in the state of California, establishing that “every person who carries a loaded firearm on his person while on a public street, or in a public place within any city or in a vehicle while in any public place or on any public street in an incorporated city or in an inhabited area of unincorporated territory is guilty of a misdemeanor.”

Recognizing that they were its primary targets, the Black Panthers protested the Mulford bill by sending an armed contingent to the state capitol on 2 May 1967. That was a day Ronald Reagan would never forget — nor, for that matter, remember accurately.

This is how he described the event and its aftermath in a personal letter written in 1979:

The Black Panthers had invaded the legislative chambers in the Capitol with loaded shotguns and held these gentlemen under the muzzles of those guns for a couple of hours. Immediately after they left, Don Mulford introduced a bill to make it unlawful to bring a loaded gun into the Capitol Building. That’s the bill I signed. It was hardly restrictive gun control.

It wasn’t true, however, that the Black Panthers had held legislators “under the muzzles of guns” for hours. They were disarmed by the capitol police soon after entering the building, and, according to most contemporaneous accounts (including that of the Associated Press) were escorted out of the chambers 30 minutes later

Reagan was also in error when he stated that the bill was introduced after the Panthers departed (as noted above, it had been introduced a month earlier), but it was revised with provisions strengthening security measures for the governor and the legislature in particular, and it was fast-tracked for passage the following month.

An addendum justifying immediate enactment of the bill specifically referenced the Black Panther incident (although this verbiage was generalized in a later draft to cite the threat of “organized groups and individuals publicly arming themselves for purposes inimical to the peace and safety of the people of California”):

The bill cleared the state’s Senate Judiciary Committee on 1 June 1967 after Mulford testified that it had been very carefully considered and had the support of the National Rifle Association, according to a United Press report published the following day. It was passed by a bipartisan majority of the full Senate and signed into law by Governor Reagan in July.

Sen. John Schmitz, who had tried unsuccessfully to defeat the bill, penned an editorial holding the NRA directly responsible for its passage, saying: “Members of the National Rifle Association in California should know that their organization, despite its record of opposing gun control bills in the past, favored this bill and that without NRA support it almost certainly would have been defeated.”

Despite angrily observing that the first real “victim” of the Mulford Act was “not a ‘Black Panther,’ nor a rioter, nor a criminal,” but rather an upstanding member of the Republican Party arrested for carrying a loaded gun in his vehicle, Schmitz failed in his efforts to repeal the act.

The National Rifle Association would later (during the 1970s) harden their stance against any limitations on the right to bear arms, but in 1967, when the Black Panthers emerged as the most militant defenders of that right, the NRA took a very different position.

Their mutual legacy, the Mulford Act, is still on the books today.

The insurrectionists that stormed state capitals and the US capital instead of the Confederate flag should have carried this flag.
Image


_________________
Professionally Identified and joined WP August 26, 2013
DSM 5: Autism Spectrum Disorder, DSM IV: Aspergers Moderate Severity.

“My autism is not a superpower. It also isn’t some kind of god-forsaken, endless fountain of suffering inflicted on my family. It’s just part of who I am as a person”. - Sara Luterman


Last edited by ASPartOfMe on 29 Jun 2021, 11:30 pm, edited 6 times in total.

auntblabby
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Feb 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 104,569
Location: the island of defective toy santas

29 Jun 2021, 11:11 pm

stinking right wing hypocrites. :x raygun can burn in an innermost circle of hell AFAIC.



ASPartOfMe
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 25 Aug 2013
Age: 64
Gender: Male
Posts: 25,919
Location: Long Island, New York

30 Jun 2021, 5:38 am

ezbzbfcg2 wrote:
People, mostly unarmed, stormed the US Capitol. According to most of the posts on this website, such an action almost led to the complete overthrown of the US government. (As if far-flung federal agents, military personnel, government agency field offices, etc., would all submit to some yahoos that smashed some windows and trespassed in the Capitol Building. :roll: )

Yet, while the unarmed storming of the Capitol is equated with the whole US government almost being subverted and overthrown (as postulated by a lot of folks here on WP), possession of personal firearms couldn't possibly have any bearing on the government in power, and, therefore, firearms should be taken away since they serve no purpose regarding people's resistance to government.

So, according to WP, unarmed hooligans almost overthrew the government, but an armed populace couldn't possibly do so. Which is it with you people?? :huh:

Uh Oh you alluded to the lefts big talking point about the “mostly peaceful demonstrations”. Yep the majority of people at the capital, as well as all the other “Stop the Steal” demonstrators were peaceful as were the earlier BLM ones. That is most often true of many if not most “violent demonstrations”.

Calling January 6 an insurrection is a misnomer, it was a failed insurrection. That it failed should not be used to dismiss the seriousness of what happened on January 6. They came close sometimes within dozens of feet of doing who knows what to Congressmen and the Vice President. While they did not have guns, they had weapons. This was the first non peaceful transfer of Presidential power in American history and the most serious attempted insurrection since the Civil War.


_________________
Professionally Identified and joined WP August 26, 2013
DSM 5: Autism Spectrum Disorder, DSM IV: Aspergers Moderate Severity.

“My autism is not a superpower. It also isn’t some kind of god-forsaken, endless fountain of suffering inflicted on my family. It’s just part of who I am as a person”. - Sara Luterman


Mr Reynholm
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 19 Feb 2019
Age: 55
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,215
Location: Tulsa, OK

30 Jun 2021, 8:35 am

ezbzbfcg2 wrote:
People, mostly unarmed, stormed the US Capitol. According to most of the posts on this website, such an action almost led to the complete overthrown of the US government. (As if far-flung federal agents, military personnel, government agency field offices, etc., would all submit to some yahoos that smashed some windows and trespassed in the Capitol Building. :roll: )

Yet, while the unarmed storming of the Capitol is equated with the whole US government almost being subverted and overthrown (as postulated by a lot of folks here on WP), possession of personal firearms couldn't possibly have any bearing on the government in power, and, therefore, firearms should be taken away since they serve no purpose regarding people's resistance to government.

So, according to WP, unarmed hooligans almost overthrew the government, but an armed populace couldn't possibly do so. Which is it with you people?? :huh:

Its whatever fits the agenda. The Jan 6 event was like the best thing that ever happened to the Democrats. They can spin it, exaggerate it, and exploit it to their hearts content. There is no consistency with the left outside of the belief that only they should be in power.



Fixxer
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 6 Mar 2021
Age: 34
Gender: Male
Posts: 672

30 Jun 2021, 9:48 am

A dead politician can't screw you anymore. I think the concept of citizen's owning guns is safe for the middle class.



techstepgenr8tion
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 6 Feb 2005
Age: 41
Gender: Male
Posts: 22,104
Location: The 27th Path of Peh.

30 Jun 2021, 9:57 am

Fixxer wrote:
A dead politician can't screw you anymore. I think the concept of citizen's owning guns is safe for the middle class.

Tighter term limits also help.


_________________
"The individual has always had to struggle to keep from being overwhelmed by the tribe. To be your own man is a hard business. If you try it, you'll be lonely often, and sometimes frightened. But no price is too high to pay for the privelege of owning yourself" - Rudyard Kipling


MaxE
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 2 Sep 2013
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,328
Location: Mid-Atlantic US

30 Jun 2021, 5:15 pm

I don't know whether guns will save us from tyranny, but I can tell you there are simply too goddamn many of them in my state. You may be familiar with the old chestnut that "when guns are outlawed only outlaws will have guns" but the fact is that the fewer legal restrictions exist on obtaining guns, the easier it is for outlaws to get them. There is probably a direct correlation between permissive gun laws and gun violence, which could probably be demonstrated by comparing on a country by country basis (not by comparing S. Illinois to Chicago).


_________________
My WP story


RetroGamer87
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 30 Jul 2013
Age: 33
Gender: Male
Posts: 9,891
Location: Adelaide, Australia

30 Jun 2021, 6:26 pm

Mr Reynholm wrote:
There is no consistency with the left outside of the belief that only they should be in power.

If the right projected any harder you could see it on the moon.


_________________
The days are long, but the years are short