Why the fear of government tyranny?

[Mall Ninja]

Power corrupts. And absolute power corrupts absolutely.

On the other side of the coin, 2300 years ago, Aristotle said that you could tell how free a society was by looking at how many of its people were armed (remember, we're talking swords and pikes, not guns).

Why? Because only an armed people truly have the power to decide their own destiny. It's called sovereignty and self-determination.

If you think that our government has a tendency to grab ever more power for itself and deny ever more freedom to the people over time, imagine how much that process would be accelerated if the government had nothing to fear from "we the people."

I don't care how benign the motives might be – any government that denies people the right to arms ultimately devolves into little more than tyranny. To bastardize Jefferson, denial of the right to arms is tyranny's natural manure.

 

[revjen45]

"I think our current President may be the worst we've had in my 51 years, ..."
At 51 you should be old enough to remember Jimmy Carter.

 

[SDC]

In short, politicians tend to be slime of the worst order, who will go to any lengths to keep power once they have a taste of it. Like the saying goes "Politicians are like diapers; they should be changed often, and for the same reason."

 

[cracked butt]

We are only one ambitious socialist away from tyranny.

The scenario that I see is another depression or maybe someone tripping over the powercord that powers the box that contains all of hte 1s and 0s that represent all of our money. Wouldn't take much for someone to comeforward and offer all of te free food, housing assistance, and medical care in exchange for a lifelong monarchy and our freedom. Hell, we are 1/2 way there already, and already have been there. At least FDR didn't live long...

 

[Specialized]

It's a fine question, and I can summarize the reasons why I believe every citizen of every country has the right to defend themselves with the best weaponry available, if need be, and why it should (from a government's perspective) be deemed an unassailable right:

1. The founders of this country had to start fresh on another continent because, after being effectively disarmed by their government, they found themselves oppressed with no recourse.

2. Every country whose government has descended into dictatorship has, at some point prior to being subjugated, been disarmed.

3. The oldest tenet of law is the right to self-defense, and any rules that limit an individual against another or a group undermines that law.

Most of these have been mentioned here, but I bring them up to point out that history is quite clear on the path of disarmament and subjugation. It is a hallmark of our country that very few people *really* believe that it could happen here, and a large percentage of Americans believes that we as a society are somehow "above" or "more advanced" than other societies to the point that our government would never do such a thing. It is clear to me that not one but both sides of this debate are moving towards such an end game, in their separate ways.

One side is steadily eroding personal rights and freedoms and is keeping a constant pressure on to surveil everybody, foreign or domestic, all the time "just in case". They have suspended habeas corpus as well as other foundational rights and claimed that their use of this power would only be directed towards the war on terrorism, and then immediately turned right around and abused it in purely domestic cases that are in no way related to the islamofascist threat.

On the other side there has been a steady drumbeat for decades to get guns out of the hands of private citizens, in spite of the clear intent of our founding fathers to never let such an imbalance of power between government and the citizenry happen again. They tell us that we don't need arms, and then arm themselves and their bodyguards to the teeth and make laws that preserve their right to do so. They chip away at the second amendment, taking advantage of the more primitive language of the mid-1700's by making sketchy claims of intent that are directly counter to the writings and warnings of the original authors. They make laws that indirectly weaken and threaten the use of weapons in self defense so that the weapons themselves look like a less viable option for protecting ourselves.

The common thread through all of this is that those who have been granted governmental power seek to gain a permanent advantage over those who have not. It's as simple as that. One could make the argument that we are already in that position as private citizens, given the disparity between the state of the art in weapons and the weapons we are "allowed" to keep today. If it really does all hit the fan, we'll be in the same position here that the Iraqis, the Somalians, the you-name-the-civil-war-area's-citizens are in -- waiting for a world power to give us enough of the right weapons and ammo to level the playing field. The only advantage we have today is numbers, and numbers without organization and tactics wouldn't get us very far. All in all, we're fighting a battle we may, for the purposes of the end-game, have already lost.

Specialized

 

[ConstitutionCowboy]

Let me say this:

"Knowing the past and more than enough of what is going on these days, I'll not surrender any arms and march less prepared into the future."

The Founding Fathers must have felt about the same thing when they drafted the Second Amendment, especially right after driving off a dictatorial government. Not being a psychic and lacking any ability to channel the dead, I can only guess at what they thought, but their response - the Second Amendment - is a pretty good clue.

Seminole summed it up in one word. I find the shortest, most terse, and direct answer is usually the correct answer to any such direct question. HISTORY. Learn from it or repeat it.

Woody

We the People retain our weapons to the end of securing our rights and freedom for when governments fail or ignore or endeavor to usurp or delete those rights and freedoms. B.E.Wood

"The United States of America is not up for grabs. Keep your hands off and steer clear. Free people live here - Free people who are determined to stay free. Our rights and freedom will be defended with extreme prejudice." B.E.Wood

 

[Shweboner]

Tyranny of the government is the only reason we have the second amendment. Not for any other reason. Regardless what you may hear.

Its not about hunting.

I have no doubt that the time may come when the last resort of free people is to take up arms against their oppressors, no matter who it is.


The question is... what would it take for you to shoot a governtment oficial?

 

[takhtakaal]

Threads like this make me think that we might easily sacrifice the rights of the OP in order to keep our own, and then just keep moving on.

 

[MiddleAgedKen]

Unfortunately for the civilians the cops were clever enough to handle them one at a time (disparity of force). A group of cops enforcing those illegal orders would have had some serious second thoughts if confronted with an equally sized (and armed) group of civilians who said "um, no, we're just going to move along to safety now and you are going to let us."

Rumor has it that something rather like that actually did happen, where neighbors had banded together for mutual aid and protection. I have only heard it third-hand, however, so salt to taste.

 

[Gator]

Rumor has it that something rather like that actually did happen, where neighbors had banded together for mutual aid and protection.

Athens, TN?

 

[I LIKE IT!]

I'm starting to think Dave is a Troll... Oh well.

 

[Carl N. Brown]

To understand my fear of tyranny, I recommend watching
two movies back to back: Triumph of the Will and Schindler's List.

 

[Carl N. Brown]

Oh. add Matewan to that list, where the townspeople stood up to
the Baldwin-Felts gun thugs sent by the coal company.

 

[Ditto_95]

"My parents were little kids, living in a democratic Austria. My grandfather had a successful business with employees and apprentices, making custom boots for motorcycle racers, ski racers and others. He tooled around Vienna on his bike and had a good life, while supporting his wife and two kids, in one of the most beautiful cities in the world, Vienna."

Last year I went to Austria for business. I visited Vienna for a day and a half. I only "found" 1 gun shop. There were only 8 handguns in a locked case.
All the rest of the weapons were for hunting.
I met many people while there and I asked all of them about handgun ownership and self defense.
To a man they were totally against it. They saw no reason to have a firearm for protection.
I did see the place of hero's where Hitler made his first speech in Austria. With that in mind I wonder why there isn't more concern for preventing government disarment.
I felt very much out of place there since I carry my 1911 everywhere I go at home.

 

[RP88]

government is meant to protect us and our rights. This is not done by stripping them or depriving them; it is done by adding laws. Taking away or further restricting guns will be a step back from freedom, but doing something like improving the NICS is logical, reasonable, and a step in the general right direction (of making sure freedoms cant be exploited by the undeserving). Things of the latter I feel are a good idea, but trying to prevent deserving people to own one just because they dislike them or 'dont believe in them' isnt fair to us who dont share their relative political beliefs. I also believe that, since the 2nd amendment is in the bill of rights, getting rid of it can pretty much pave the way for them to go after the rest of it. If the second amendment is a 'collective' right, then what about the other nine? Even if I end up not buying a gun as initially planned to shortly, I'll still believe in the right for others to own them if they choose to.

 

[Flyboy]

'nuff said.

 

[TargetTerror]

I view #2 less as citizens literally using guns to overthrow the government and more as a balance of power issue. Really, gun ownership is just one highly visible and contentious issue in the current push towards a nanny state.

It goes back to Hobbe's State of Nature. People cede some autonomy and power to a government, with the understanding that said government will offer them protection and other benefits in return. If a government takes too much power, than they have begun down the road towards tyranny. There is a LOT of room between anarchy and Nazi Germany.

 

[yinyangdc]

Flyboy, I was appreciating the dichotomy (would irony be better?) of those 2 threads myself.

 

[DaveBeal]

I'm starting to think Dave is a Troll... Oh well.

Oh, so you've read my earlier postings...

When I started reading and occasionally posting to this forum about a month ago, I had the standard liberal mindset. You all have changed my thinking to a substantial degree already.

I'm really trying to understand, and I thank everyone who's responded.

 

[BRASSM]

Any Government that can give you everything you have, can also take everything you have.

 

[sailortoo]

Bravo Dave - your last post says it all - you are seeing the light, just through being able to read the thoughts of many well intentioned persons posting their feelings about a really critical subject. I'll bet many of the posters have done some deep thinking and soul searching, just so they could give you some valid answers to your OP. A good exercise for all of us.
sailortoo
Semper Paratus (also)

 

[General Geoff]

I don't fear government tyranny. I expect it. There's a difference.

 

[Colt46]

Is there a nation around today that hasn't suffered?

Power tends to attract those that don't like to give it up, line their own pockets and generally abuse their position to achieve those ends.
I don't think there are too many nations that haven't suffered some hideous fates brought down upon them by those that rule them.
I believe the Bill of Rights was to empower the people and make those we elect fear us. Sad, how they don't seem to understand that. We don't either, I guess, as we keep reelecting them.

 

[firearms_instructor]

Voting has been stolen from us

Whaddya think keeps them honest?

1. Voting

With the proliferation of electronic voting machines that do not provide a paper trail and have internal modems that allow them to be remotely reprogrammed, election fraud is not only possible, but pretty much a given. So voting is no longer a power that the people retain until we fix that. The ballot box has been stolen. Don't take my word for it. Google 'election fraud'.

Dude, where's my vote?

Stop Election Theft

Paperless voting is unacceptable. Consider this my vote of no confidence to anyone who supports paperless voting. As far as I'm concerned, the only reason to support paperless voting is to steal elections. If you lose the paper trail, you lose credibility.

Click the link above to sign petitions for election accountability.

 

[Gunther]

I have "wargamed" this scenario many times. If the gov't becomes this tyrannical, they won't collect guns by calling you up or letters to turn them in.They will wait until you are at work and the wife and kids are home.Then you will get the frantic phone call to come home because the SWAT team wants to know where your guns are and if they don't find them mom and the kids are heading for detention. Then what will you do? Sorry honey I'm heading for the hills good luck, or will you go home and hand them over and probably still get locked up. For those of us who carry a badge I see this coming as the politicans don't want anyone standing in the way of their authority and if you are not a faithful minion you are out. We have some hard choices to make in the days ahead.