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.
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.
Click to expand...
It helps if you’re fighting in your own backyard.

Afghanistan v Soviets, Vietnam v France and then the US.
 
livingwordunity said:
Here’s a thought. America with the most powerful and advanced military in the world has been unable to defeat the Taliban in a country slightly smaller than Texas after over a decade of fighting them because of primitive tribes with small arms who use gorilla warfare tactics. 🙂
Click to expand...
Guerrilla, mate - no matter how poor the opinion some have of the Taliban, they aren’t literally monkeys 😉
 
Bradski said:
It helps if you’re fighting in your own backyard.

Afghanistan v Soviets, Vietnam v France and then the US.
Click to expand...
Fighting in their own backyard is exactly what the US military would be doing if they took on armed US citizens. So the citizens would not have the same advantage as the Afghans or Vietnamese.
 
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...
Did that rag-tag army also have Abrams tanks, guided missiles, drones, etc., etc…?
 
The Colonists wouldn’t have pulled it off in any case, without the help of France, it behooves us to remember.

ICXC NIKA
 
A bunch of self-professed patriots armed with AR-15s is not going to be able to defeat the US government. Waco and Ruby Ridge are but two examples of this. But that’s not the point of the Second Amendment. It is the armed citizenry as a whole that keeps the government in check.

No one will defeat the government by means of a coup. You will defeat the government by winning over the hearts and minds of the people and getting the military on your side.

That’s what happened in the American Civil War. The southern states rebelled against what they felt was a tyrannical government; rising up against them with real military leadership. True, they ultimately lost (and they might not have, had the British come in on their side as they had hoped) but it shows what an armed citizenry is capable of doing.
 
Robert_Sock said:
You need to keep in mind that in all things, God works for the good. In God we trust!
Click to expand...
I suppose I could have made myself a little more clear.
When I say “Host Culture” I’m referring to “Pop-Culture”.

Our current host culture is an unnatural made-up culture based on all cultures combined. Using the ‘Melting Pot Theory’, all cultures, religions and sciences here are matched up against each other and certain ones are then selected to create a one system platform for all that works for every way of life no matter how sinful that lifestyle is including homosexual marriage. The problem with that is that it ends up not functioning properly for anyone because its completely unnatural.

IMO, the current Host Culture (pop-culture) needs to be fixed by ending the reign of our current melting pot theology, and replacing it with cultural diversity which would benefit the Church all around by allowing Gods plan to fulfill itself naturally -thus eventually creating a new Host Culture based on the Church’s “Culture of Life”. 🙂
 
The reason those faithful to Melting Pot Theology want guns abolished is because they know that since not everyone can handle weapons like that, they need to create a one-rule-fits-all law banning all dangerous weapons for everyone. It’s Melting Pot Theology… Their next goal will be to spread their man-made religion globally. They will stop at nothing until their culture/religion becomes merely one option out of many. Melting Pot Theology does not deserve Host Culture status. :cool:

Here’s the official definition of Melting Pot Theology that I’ve ‘coined’…😛

“Melting Pot Theology: A man made culture/religion based on the relativist ideology that matches all religions, cultures and science up against each other in order to find solutions on ONE system that works for EVERY different way of life. These ‘solutions’ , however, tend to become meaningless because they aren’t actually relative to everyone. They exist outside of the naturally developed cultures that have historically taken thousands of years to develop. This new ‘culture’ is created synthetically typically within ten years or so. Its purpose is primarily used only as a measuring tool to validate social anarchy. It’s ‘values’ are accepted in some cases as a social expectation for all other cultures to adopt which makes it more of a blend between a cultural and religious movement.”
 
LilyM said:
No - and more to the point neither did the mighty military empire they fought against.
Click to expand...
Actually, the point is that “modern-day patriots” do not have these things and would not be able to stand up to the might of the United States military. As stated by someone else, Ruby Ridge and Waco are excellent examples of this.
 
Timothysis said:
Actually, the point is that “modern-day patriots” do not have these things and would not be able to stand up to the might of the United States military. As stated by someone else, Ruby Ridge and Waco are excellent examples of this.
Click to expand...
Read my post #30.
 
Radical leftists needs to get their anti-second amendment arguments straight.

I’ve lost track. It’s like playing round 24 of the 80’s game “Simon.”

“An armed citizenry won’t stop a tyrannical government.”

“We need more gun restrictions (despite not enforcing current ones) to save children’s lives.”

“You don’t need handguns and AR-15s to hunt.”

“You don’t need assault weapons to defend your family.”

“The 2nd amendment was intended to refer to a well-armed militia.”

It’s like the abortion argument. It used to focus on the baby not being alive, but when that got shown to be ridiculous as science advanced, the line moved to “it is a live, but it isn’t a baby” and “even if it is a baby, the mother’s rights trump the baby’s rights.”

Winning debates would be much easier if the people you were debating against didn’t change their argument when shown they are wrong.
 
HappyCatholic01 said:
Radical leftists needs to get their anti-second amendment arguments straight.

I’ve lost track. It’s like playing round 24 of the 80’s game “Simon.”

“An armed citizenry won’t stop a tyrannical government.”

“We need more gun restrictions (despite not enforcing current ones) to save children’s lives.”

“You don’t need handguns and AR-15s to hunt.”

“You don’t need assault weapons to defend your family.”

“The 2nd amendment was intended to refer to a well-armed militia.”

It’s like the abortion argument. It used to focus on the baby not being alive, but when that got shown to be ridiculous as science advanced, the line moved to “it is a live, but it isn’t a baby” and “even if it is a baby, the mother’s rights trump the baby’s rights.”

Winning debates would be much easier if the people you were debating against didn’t change their argument when shown they are wrong.
Click to expand...
What, it’s impossible that one or more of these arguments are actually true and they merely aren’t trotted out all at once? Why should they be?

And what about the pro-gun arguments:

‘Background checks will make it harder for me to get a gun’ (but somehow not criminals, because someone who disobeys one law of course will automatically disobey any and every other law as well)

‘Doesn’t matter that other countries somehow manage to combine restrictions on gun ownership with low rates of crime, it’ll never work here’ (you mean the US and its citizens are somehow incapable of learning from countries which are more successful? Of even from events in their own past such as nuclear weapons reductions?)

‘Criminals will still get guns, just like they still get drugs’. Yep, and they cheat on taxes and drive drunk and do all manner of other things as well. The fact remains that we still have laws against these things on the books. And I doubt that God would smile upon us throwing up our hands in the face of all these inevitable evils and making them all legal and simply not even trying to implement laws about them.

I particularly love the poster who said ‘well, mass shootings went down in Australia, so did gun suicide, but rape went up’. Umm, if the two choices are rape or death I for one would certainly rather be raped and still alive, and know that hundreds at least of my fellow countrymen were likewise still alive because of gun restrictions. For me rape, although the idea is extremely traumatic and horrible, is certainly not ‘a fate worse than death’ nor do I see death as in any way preferable.
 
At least Bill Maher didn’t try claiming that he actually cares about homicide victims or something like that. He’s doing his best to be honest, yet still supporting Democratic principles. It’s the best he can do without flat out lying.
 
LilyM said:
What, it’s impossible that one or more of these arguments are actually true and they merely aren’t trotted out all at once? Why should they be?

And what about the pro-gun arguments:

‘Background checks will make it harder for me to get a gun’ (but somehow not criminals, because someone who disobeys one law of course will automatically disobey any and every other law as well)

‘Doesn’t matter that other countries somehow manage to combine restrictions on gun ownership with low rates of crime, it’ll never work here’ (you mean the US and its citizens are somehow incapable of learning from countries which are more successful? Of even from events in their own past such as nuclear weapons reductions?)

‘Criminals will still get guns, just like they still get drugs’. Yep, and they cheat on taxes and drive drunk and do all manner of other things as well. The fact remains that we still have laws against these things on the books. And I doubt that God would smile upon us throwing up our hands in the face of all these inevitable evils and making them all legal and simply not even trying to implement laws about them.

I particularly love the poster who said ‘well, mass shootings went down in Australia, so did gun suicide, but rape went up’. Umm, if the two choices are rape or death I for one would certainly rather be raped and still alive, and know that hundreds at least of my fellow countrymen were likewise still alive because of gun restrictions. For me rape, although the idea is extremely traumatic and horrible, is certainly not ‘a fate worse than death’ nor do I see death as in any way preferable.
Click to expand...
What if the choices were not death or rape, but death or tyranny?

(This is a hypothetical, as in my life I have always feared death, but never tyranny; and I find it very puzzling that a country with NO history of tyranny fears it so maniacally, while societies that have survived it do not fear it nearly so strongly).

ICXC NIKA
 
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...
Unfortunately today we are not being oppressed by redcoats but by both Federal and State police agencies.
The only way to “fight back” with small arms would be a wholesale campaign of assassination against BATF, TSA, FBI &c agents, US attorneys, DAs, &c.*

Of course, that would lead bring in the Army which no “2nd Amendment Army” could oppose.

*I suppose we could start with tarring & feathering or riding them out of town on a rail.
 
Timothysis said:
Actually, the point is that “modern-day patriots” do not have these things and would not be able to stand up to the might of the United States military. As stated by someone else, Ruby Ridge and Waco are excellent examples of this.
Click to expand...
How so? If anything it showed how a tiny group with minute support tied down massive amounts of federal and state resources. Imagine a somewhat popular uprising of thousands of like minded groups. The government would collapse trying to respond in similar fashion.

2 men (only one armed) tied up thousands of federal and state officers and shut down a city for day. Imagine 100 such men with thousands of citizens willing to support them.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top