Bill Maher: It’s ‘Ridiculous,’ ‘Quaint’ & ‘Nonsensical’ to Think 2nd Amendment Can Prevent Tyranny

  • Thread starter Thread starter Robert_Sock
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
SamH said:
All those weapons - does the pope expect to put down an attempted overthrow from the Cardinals?
Click to expand...
Your assertion sounds ridiculous. Do you think that the Swiss Guard is preparing for a tyranny? Again, please relate what you’re saying to the original post.
 
Lost_Sheep said:
Many years ago an untrained rag-tag army of ordinary citizens armed with mostly privately-owned guns took on the most powerful military empire of the day and defeated them. Maybe you’ve heard of this event: It was called the American Revolutionary War.
Click to expand...
They also had France (the second most powerful nation in the world at the time) running supplies to the colonies, stopping British reinforcements from getting across the Atlantic whenever, and actually fighting some of america’s battles for it.
 
Robert_Sock said:
But there have been posts in this thread that gun ownership can somehow thwart government threats. (see posts #30 and #40 as examples.) And from your post, it would seem that you’re in agreement with Bill Maher’s basic contention.
Click to expand...
If many people have guns,then the government is less likey to try to bully them. Gun ownership affects the leverage of power between the government and the citizens and the disposition of the government towards the citizens. Gun ownership sends a subtle message that you are going to defend yourself if provoked. The attitude and threat expressed by widespread gun ownership is enough to discourage government tyranny. Even though the government has a far greater advantage than armed citizens,it still does not want trouble with them. Politicians and soldiers and police officers are less inclined to abuse or disrespect citizens who have guns and insist on being respected than people who passively accept being lorded over. They can’t afford to provoke too many people to anger and resistance. If the government kills or imprisons some responsible citizens without just cause,then the rest of the people may be angered and protest. Even a tyrannical government needs the cooperation and support of the people to retain power. It gets its revenue from the tax-paying citzens. No government can stay in power if a majority of citizens,or even a large minority of armed people,are against it.
 
anthony022071 said:
If many people have guns,then the government is less likey to try to bully them. Gun ownership affects the leverage of power between the government and the citizens and the disposition of the government towards the citizens. Gun ownership sends a subtle message that people are going to defend themselves if necessary. The attitude expressed by gun ownership is enough to discourage government tyranny. Even though the government has a far greater advantage than armed citizens,it still does not want trouble with them. Politicians and soldiers and police officers are less inclined to abuse or disrespect citizens who have guns and insist on being respected than people who passively accept being lorded over. They can’t afford to provoke too many people to anger and resistance. If the government kills or imprisons some responsible citizens without just cause,then the rest of the people may be angered and protest. Even a tyrannical government needs the cooperation and support of the people to retain power. It gets its revenue from the tax-paying citzens. No government can stay in power if a majority of citizens are against it.
Click to expand...
No, it just means that the government will lay siege to those it wishes to oppress rather than just busting them. As happened in Waco.

Government has to enforce its decrees; in most of the world, it does not need to make war upon its citizens.

And people carrying weapons often get hassled because of it, rather than left alone.

ICXC NIKA
 
anthony022071 said:
If many people have guns,then the government is less likey to try to bully them. Gun ownership affects the leverage of power between the government and the citizens and the disposition of the government towards the citizens. Gun ownership sends a subtle message that you are going to defend yourself if provoked. The attitude and threat expressed by widespread gun ownership is enough to discourage government tyranny. Even though the government has a far greater advantage than armed citizens,it still does not want trouble with them. Politicians and soldiers and police officers are less inclined to abuse or disrespect citizens who have guns and insist on being respected than people who passively accept being lorded over. They can’t afford to provoke too many people to anger and resistance. If the government kills or imprisons some responsible citizens without just cause,then the rest of the people may be angered and protest. Even a tyrannical government needs the cooperation and support of the people to retain power. It gets its revenue from the tax-paying citzens. No government can stay in power if a majority of citizens,or even a large minority of armed people,are against it.
Click to expand...
Romans
Let every person be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those that exist have been instituted by God.
 
GEddie said:
No, it just means that the government will lay siege to those it wishes to oppress rather than just busting them. As happened in Waco.

Government has to enforce its decrees; in most of the world, it does not need to make war upon its citizens.

And people carrying weapons often get hassled because of it, rather than left alone.

ICXC NIKA
Click to expand...
The government got away with killing the people in Waco because they were an irrational, isolated group that barricaded themselves with weapons,and so they were not a group that many Americans would be sympathetic toward. If the government attacked a more socially respectable group of people today,such as conservative protesters,there would be much more anger and outrage among Americans,and many people would see the need of armed resistance.
 
anthony022071 said:
If many people have guns,then the government is less likey to try to bully them. Gun ownership affects the leverage of power between the government and the citizens and the disposition of the government towards the citizens. Gun ownership sends a subtle message that you are going to defend yourself if provoked. The attitude and threat expressed by widespread gun ownership is enough to discourage government tyranny. Even though the government has a far greater advantage than armed citizens,it still does not want trouble with them. Politicians and soldiers and police officers are less inclined to abuse or disrespect citizens who have guns and insist on being respected than people who passively accept being lorded over. They can’t afford to provoke too many people to anger and resistance. If the government kills or imprisons some responsible citizens without just cause,then the rest of the people may be angered and protest. Even a tyrannical government needs the cooperation and support of the people to retain power. It gets its revenue from the tax-paying citzens. No government can stay in power if a majority of citizens,or even a large minority of armed people,are against it.
Click to expand...
And who are the renegades with guns going to shoot at if they feel bullied by the government? (See post #90.)
 
Robert_Sock said:
Romans
Let every person be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those that exist have been instituted by God.
Click to expand...
The Church does not forbid resistance to governing authorities if they are oppressing people. It is right for Christians to submit to martyrdom for their faith when the time comes,but that does not mean that any kind of oppression must be endured.
 
anthony022071 said:
The Church does not forbid resistance to governing authorities if they are oppressing people. It is right for Christians to submit to martyrdom for their faith when the time comes,but that does not mean that any kind of oppression must be endured.
Click to expand...
Who are we to judge the government?

From what you’re saying it would be alright if the homeless took up arms against the government because they are most definitely being oppressed in our greedy and pitiful society; the same would be true for American Indians, etc. I choose to go by the bible which says that we ought to be subservient to government, even in the face of perceived oppression.
 
anthony022071 said:
The soldiers or police that the government sends to shoot at them,of course.
Click to expand...
What if the police and the real military simply refused to show up? What then? The renegade wackos would be wise to simply go to the shooting range to vent their frustrations.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top