A
anthony022071
Guest
Those definitions do not fit what is generally happening with homeless people. They are not being oppressed simply because of other people’s greed and apathy. Oppression is deliberate abuse of people.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Bill Maher: It’s ‘Ridiculous,’ ‘Quaint’ & ‘Nonsensical’ to Think 2nd Amendment Can Prevent Tyranny
- Status
- Not open for further replies.
A
anthony022071
Guest
Logistically its possible,but even tyrannical governments cannot afford to just kill off a large proportion of the citizens,especially if it does not already have the support or compliance of a majority of the citizens. Governments need popular support as well as military support. That is why tyrants use continuous propaganda. They can only continue to exert power over the people to the extent that the people are willing to comply. They need the citizens for tax revenue and the production of supplies. It takes a great amount of money and supplies to maintain a military,and so governments depend upon civilian workers and businesses. Governments cannot afford to provoke the majority of citizens to anger and resistance.The American army certainly could indiscriminately bomb Afghanistan into complete submission.
Likewise, the American army could go door to door with tanks in America and blast any house to bits, and a rifle would not be able to defend against that. Again it would be indiscriminate killing involved.
And for those with rifles who take to the hills and snipe off a soldier or two, there is always agent orange and napalming the countryside to completely decimate the countryside hiding out the renegades.
This is how a war against an armed America would be able to be won.
O
october_baby
Guest
Then take it up with the founding fathers, try reading the Federalist Papers.The purpose of the Vatican having guns is for national security, and if Pope Francis has his say, I think that stockpiling of weapons may come to an end. In any event, this in no way justifies Americans taking up arms to prevent a perceived tyranny.
Americans using guns to ward off a perceived tyranny will only result in a bloodbath. Again, we as Catholics are obliged to listen to the Vatican, and until the Vatican tells Americans to take up arms, we as Catholics are not to condone such violence.
The right to bear arms is far different from using those arm to ward off a perceived tyranny. Again, our allegiance as Catholics is to the great nation of the Vatican, and not the constitution per se.
R
Robert_Sock
Guest
It also takes time, training, great planning and mobilization of efforts to overthrow a government, things that average citizens with handguns simply cannot do. Where do you see the government having to kill off a large proportion of its citizens? Who are these law abiding citizens going to shoot at if the military simply did not show up? Unless of course they form a violent protest, in which case they would die in a bloodbath. Better for these renegades to go to the shooting gallery and take their frustrations out there. Think about it; it’s absurd to think that average citizens can avert a perceived tyranny.Logistically its possible,but even tyrannical governments cannot afford to just kill off a large proportion of the citizens,especially if it does not already have the support or compliance of a majority of the citizens. Governments need popular support as well as military support. That is why tyrants use continuous propaganda. They can only continue to exert power over the people to the extent that the people are willing to comply. They need the citizens for tax revenue and the production of supplies. It takes a great amount of money and supplies to maintain a military,and so governments depend upon civilian workers and businesses. Governments cannot afford to provoke the majority of citizens to anger and resistance.
S
SamH
Guest
History is wasted on some people.It also takes time, training, great planning and mobilization of efforts to overthrow a government, things that average citizens with handguns simply cannot do. Where do you see the government having to kill off a large proportion of its citizens? Who are these law abiding citizens going to shoot at if the military simply did not show up? Unless of course they form a violent protest, in which case they would die in a bloodbath. Better for these renegades to go to the shooting gallery and take their frustrations out there. Think about it; it’s absurd to think that average citizens can avert a perceived tyranny.
A
april32010
Guest
and when has the Vatican ever done this?until the Vatican tells Americans to take up arms, we as Catholics are not to condone such violence.
R
Robert_Sock
Guest
Probably never has happened, but it could happen in the future and this is what it would take for Catholics to condone violence against one’s government.and when has the Vatican ever done this?
Peace.
G
Gricken
Guest
I don’t remember that being a church teachingProbably never has happened, but it could happen in the future and this is what it would take for Catholics to condone violence against one’s government.
Peace.
R
Robert_Sock
Guest
For me it’s common sense. We are not living deep within American history, but are a part of an incredibly advanced technological society.History is wasted on some people.
R
Robert_Sock
Guest
The Vatican has a moral responsibility to express its view in the case of such violence against the government…I don’t remember that being a church teaching
S
SamH
Guest
Who said anything about “American” History?For me it’s common sense. We are not living deep within American history, but are a part of an incredibly advanced technological society.
R
Robert_Sock
Guest
OK, deep within world history.Who said anything about “American” History?
G
GEddie
Guest
Well, only in America has the “right to be armed” in case of tyranny been part of the foundational propaganda.Who said anything about “American” History?
T
tomarin
Guest
I don’t think it’s propaganda. I think there is a history of Englishmen and women believing that the government does not have the right to disarm its citizens, and that they brought this belief with them to the American colonies and therefore that it predates the writing of the Second Amendment of the Constitution, which merely formalized this right.Well, only in America has the “right to be armed” in case of tyranny been part of the foundational propaganda.
Why this belief (and I think it’s a reasonable belief) seems to have faded away in other parts of the English-speaking world is a mystery to me.
P
Peebo
Guest
Australia has never had a “right” to bear arms in its constitution…it has never been an issue with Australians…period.I don’t think it’s propaganda. I think there is a history of Englishmen and women believing that the government does not have the right to disarm its citizens, and that they brought this belief with them to the American colonies and therefore that it predates the writing of the Second Amendment of the Constitution, which merely formalized this right.
Why this belief (and I think it’s a reasonable belief) seems to have faded away in other parts of the English-speaking world is a mystery to me.
S
starshiptrooper
Guest
Wasn’t Australia originally used as a penal colony though?Australia has never had a “right” to bear arms in its constitution…it has never been an issue with Australians…period.
P
Peebo
Guest
Some of the states were…the rest where free settlers…guns and gun ownership have never been an issue with Australians…Australians don’t…and never have felt threatened by any takeover by the government or the military…they also don’t fear that they need to be armed for self protection…Australians will tell you that the less guns the safer they are…whereas here in the US it’s the exact opposite…the more guns the safer we are…although not all Americans support that claim…percentage wise we here in the US have 23 times the gun murder rate than Australia…it really is the type of subject that can’t be argued to any satisfaction…guns are a part of American culture…they are not part of Australian culture…a good example would be the Port Arthur massacre in Tasmania in 1996…35 people were killed by a guy using high powered weapons…the whole of Australia was genuinely shocked…the Federal government banned the sale of automatic and semi-automatic weapons…very few people objected to that action…there was no outcry that the government was using that massacre as a ruse to dis-arm the citizens…it’s not part of the Australian psyche to think along those lines…we have had quite a few massacres here in the US…even the massacre of innocent children is brushed aside at any mention of gun control…in fact the cry has been for more guns…that is why the issue is different in all cultures.Wasn’t Australia originally used as a penal colony though?
S
SamH
Guest
Facts conflict with your opinion:Some of the states were…the rest where free settlers…guns and gun ownership have never been an issue with Australians…Australians don’t…and never have felt threatened by any takeover by the government or the military…they also don’t fear that they need to be armed for self protection…Australians will tell you that the less guns the safer they are…whereas here in the US it’s the exact opposite…the more guns the safer we are…although not all Americans support that claim…percentage wise we here in the US have 23 times the gun murder rate than Australia…it really is the type of subject that can’t be argued to any satisfaction…guns are a part of American culture…they are not part of Australian culture…a good example would be the Port Arthur massacre in Tasmania in 1996…35 people were killed by a guy using high powered weapons…the whole of Australia was genuinely shocked…the Federal government banned the sale of automatic and semi-automatic weapons…very few people objected to that action…there was no outcry that the government was using that massacre as a ruse to dis-arm the citizens…it’s not part of the Australian psyche to think along those lines…we have had quite a few massacres here in the US…even the massacre of innocent children is brushed aside at any mention of gun control…in fact the cry has been for more guns…that is why the issue is different in all cultures.
The development of legislation aimed at reducing the incidence of firearm-related death is an ongoing interest within the spheres of criminology, public policy, and criminal justice. Although a body of research has examined the impacts of significant epochs of regulatory reform upon firearm-related suicides and homicides in countries like Australia, where strict nationwide firearms regulations were introduced in 1996, relatively little research has considered the occurrence of a specific type of homicide: mass shooting events. The current paper examines the incidence of mass shootings in Australia and New Zealand (a country that is socioeconomically similar to Australia, but with a different approach to firearms regulation) over a 30 year period. It does not find support for the hypothesis that Australia’s prohibition of certain types of firearms has prevented mass shootings, with New Zealand not experiencing a mass shooting since 1997 despite the availability in that country of firearms banned in Australia. These findings are discussed in the context of social and economic trends
Justice Policy Journal, Vol. 8, No. 1, Spring 2011
R
Robert_Sock
Guest
And your point is? Just because one study did not find support for, in no way means it isn’t true.Facts conflict with your opinion:
P
Peebo
Guest
There has not been any gun related mass killing in Australia since the Port Arthur massacre in 1996…the number of gun related murders decreased by 59 per cent…the number of homicides by 65 per cent…those are facts…and my opinion is in line with the vast majority of Australians…not your “facts”.Facts conflict with your opinion:
- Status
- Not open for further replies.