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

[Robert_Sock]

After all - it was for the common good.

Please relate it to the original post. We are not living deep within history anymore, but in a super advanced technological era.

 

[SamH]

Please relate it to the original post. We are not living deep within history anymore, but in a super advanced technological era.

How does your post relate to the conversation?

Deep within history? Syria, Afghanistan, Egypt, Somali, Yeman, Iraq, Mexico, Libya, and Russia are all ongoing civilian conflicts with their goverments in the “super advances technologocal era”. The more things change the more they stay the same.

 

[Robert_Sock]

How does your post relate to the conversation?

Deep within history? Syria, Afghanistan, Egypt, Somali, Yeman, Iraq, Mexico, Libya, and Russia are all ongoing civilian conflicts with their goverments in the “super advances technologocal era”. The more things change the more they stay the same.

Please relate this to post #175. The ‘civil wars’ you are talking about in other nations are often government sponsored from other nations, and took decades of meticulous planning to mobilize opposition forces. Would rocket launchers, suicide bombers and car bombs be a problem in Western societies? No. Would gangs have a chance to form and use terrorism against the average citizens in Western Society? Not a chance. So, the oppositions you are talking about seem irrelevant to the discussion.

 

[SamH]

Please relate this to post #175. The ‘civil wars’ you are talking about in other nations are often government sponsored from other nations, and took decades of meticulous planning to mobilize opposition forces. Would rocket launchers, suicide bombers and car bombs be a problem in Western societies? No. Would gangs have a chance to form and use terrorism against the average citizens in Western Society? Not a chance. So, the oppositions you are talking about seem irrelevant to the discussion.

Your ignorance on the topic doesn’t make you a master of the subject.

You don’t think a rocket launcher would be a problem for western societies? An entire city was shut down in the US because of a couple guys with a week’s planning (or less) acting alone with pressure cookers.

 

[Robert_Sock]

Your ignorance on the topic doesn’t make you a master of the subject.

You don’t think a rocket launcher would be a problem for western societies? An entire city was shut down in the US because of a couple guys with a week’s planning (or less) acting alone with pressure cookers.

Big difference between a rocket launcher and a pressure cooker! Pressure cooker bombs may exist in such an uprising, but they would be the rare exception rather than the rule. The Boston bombers had outside help that simply would not be present to a renegade group. Again, we’re talking primarily about citizens armed with simple handguns, and not much more.

 

[SamH]

Big difference between a rocket launcher and a pressure cooker! Pressure cooker bombs may exist in such an uprising, but they would be the rare exception rather than the rule. The Boston bombers had outside help that simply would not be present to a renegade group. Again, we’re talking primarily about citizens armed with simple handguns, and not much more.

Have you told the FBI about this outside help?

Agreed - this is a huge difference between a pressure cooker and a rocket launcher. Why do you keep trying to limit the topic to handguns? That’s not part of the OP.

 

[Robert_Sock]

Have you told the FBI about this outside help?

If I remember correctly, the Boston bombers had a connection to an outside militant group. Such an invention was far beyond their puny innate wit.

Why do you keep trying to limit the topic to handguns? That’s not part of the OP.

Because the fact remains that most of the renegades would be limited to handguns.

 

[SamH]

If I remember correctly, the Boston bombers had a connection to an outside militant group. Such an invention was far beyond their puny innate wit.
.

Source? I believe your memory is faulty.

They were two men with no help in the city and caused a massive reaction that relied upon dumb luck to kill/capture them. Hardly a popular uprising by thousands against an oppressive government.

Because the fact remains that most of the renegades would be limited to handguns.

Source of this “fact”?

A November 2012 Congressional Research Service report found that, as of 2009, there were approximately 310 million firearms in the United States: “114 million handguns, 110 million rifles, and 86 million shotguns.”

slate.com/blogs/crime/2012/12/20/assault_rifle_stats_how_many_assault_rifles_are_there_in_america.html

 

[on_the_hill]

Well, there’s a liberal tyranny of thought that isn’t using firearms at all.

 

[Robert_Sock]

Source? I believe your memory is faulty.

They were two men with no help in the city and caused a massive reaction that relied upon dumb luck to kill/capture them. Hardly a popular uprising by thousands against an oppressive government.

Again, how could their puny innate wit allow them to build that weapon? Of course they had to have had outside help.

metro.us/newyork/news/2013/04/28/investigators-probe-whether-boston-bombing-suspects-had-outside-help/

Source of this “fact”?

The common knowledge that most with guns have access to only handguns. And simply having a rifle or shotgun is not that much of an additional threat for a super advanced military power. You’re nitpicking, and not focusing on the crux of the matter at hand, as outlined in post #175. .

 

[Gricken]

“common knowledge” is not a source

 

[SamH]

Again, how could their puny innate wit allow them to build that weapon? Of course they had to have had outside help.

metro.us/newyork/news/2013/04/28/investigators-probe-whether-boston-bombing-suspects-had-outside-help/

The common knowledge that most with guns have access to only handguns. And simply having a rifle or shotgun is not that much of an additional threat for a super advanced military power. You’re nitpicking, and not focusing on the crux of the matter at hand, as outlined in post #175. .

You do realize that the article speculates on that idea - does not confirm your claim at all. Even if your claim were true - it does nothing to further your arguement at all. What did they need help with? Buying the $50 pressure cooker - finding the plans online? 2 guys with no popular support for their “cause” whatever that may have been turned the metro area of 4.5 million into a ghost town with thousands of police and soldiers patroling the area. Imagine the effect of 200,000 men with a purpose.

As for your “common sense claim” who do you think owns those 200 million long arms in the US?

Post 175? What about post 1?

 

[SamH]

“common knowledge” is not a source

Especially when the term is used incorrectly.

 

[Robert_Sock]

You do realize that the article speculates on that idea - does not confirm your claim at all. Even if your claim were true - it does nothing to further your arguement at all. What did they need help with? Buying the $50 pressure cooker - finding the plans online? 2 guys with no popular support for their “cause” whatever that may have been turned the metro area of 4.5 million into a ghost town with thousands of police and soldiers patroling the area. Imagine the effect of 200,000 men with a purpose.

As for your “common sense claim” who do you think owns those 200 million long arms in the US?

Post 175? What about post 1?

OK, suppose they built it themselves, how much of a threat would this be to our modern military? Who would the renegades target? Innocent citizens? Certainly no match for trained military personnel!

A person could not handle more than one weapon at a time, and most of the rifle owners own more than one. Again, who would they be shooting at if Marshal Law is declared and army helicopters and drones are put into action? It would be a bloodbath for the renegades. Please provide your rationalization to the contrary.

You have yet to address post #175, or the original post. You’ve been beating-around-the-bush throughout this thread.

 

[SamH]

OK, suppose they built it themselves, how much of a threat would this be to our modern military? Who would the renegades target? Innocent citizens? Certainly no match for trained military personnel!

A person could not handle more than one weapon at a time, and most of the rifle owners own more than one. Again, who would they be shooting at if Marshal Law is declared and army helicopters and drones are put into action? It would be a bloodbath for the renegades. Please provide your rationalization to the contrary.

You have yet to address post #175, or the original post. You’ve been beating-around-the-bush throughout this thread.

Don’t care about post 175.

 

[Robert_Sock]

Don’t care about post 175.

Beating-around-the-bush again. How about addressing the rest of my last post that you conveniently ignored?

 

[SamH]

Beating-around-the-bush again. How about addressing the rest of my last post that you conveniently ignored?

There doesn’t appear to be anything to respond too. I quote facts and sources - you make ridiculous claims that don’t appear to be intended to be taken seriously - so I don’t.

 

[Robert_Sock]

There doesn’t appear to be anything to respond too. I quote facts and sources - you make ridiculous claims that don’t appear to be intended to be taken seriously - so I don’t.

Looks like you’re flat out of ammunition. (Do I need a source for that too!)

 

[anthony022071]

It also takes time, training, great planning and mobilization of efforts to overthrow a government, things that average citizens with handguns simply cannot do.

I wasn’t talking about overthrowing a government, I was talking about the possiblity of people resisting a tyrannical government. But any government can be overthrown if enough people resist it. As I said,even tyranical governments need popular support. They need the compliance of the people to rule over them,and they need tax revenue and products,which comes from the working citizens,in order to support . No government can rule over a nation for long if it only has military support,or if a large proportion of the citizenry is resisting it. .

Where do you see the government having to kill off a large proportion of its citizens?

As I said before,governments can’t afford to do that.

Who are these law abiding citizens going to shoot at if the military simply did not show up?

That’s a silly question. They won’t shoot at anyone. Why do you think they would? But if the government sees a group of citizens as a immediate threat,then the military will show up.

Unless of course they form a violent protest, in which case they would die in a bloodbath.

Soldiers would also die. And if the government kills people that many others are not against,then they might become so outraged that they also will oppose the government.

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.

It’s been done before. Tyranny is not only perceived,it is sometimes real.

 

[Robert_Sock]

I wasn’t talking about overthrowing a government, I was talking about the possiblity of people resisting a tyrannical government. But any government can be overthrown if enough people resist it. As I said,even tyranical governments need popular support. They need the compliance of the people to rule over them,and they need tax revenue and products,which comes from the working citizens,in order to support . No government can rule over a nation for long if it only has military support,or if a large proportion of the citizenry is resisting it. .

The original post has to do with the Second Amendment preventing a tyranny. Popular support certainly would play a role, but where does it come into the question?

As I said before,governments can’t afford to do that.

Indeed, it would never get to that point. The military will have things under control in a short span of time.

That’s a silly question. They won’t shoot at anyone. Why do you think they would? But if the government sees a group of citizens as a immediate threat,then the military will show up.

Indeed, the vast majority of citizens would not shoot at anyone!

Soldiers would also die. And if the government kills people that many others are not against,then they might become so outraged that they also will oppose the government.

Perhaps some of the military personnel would die, but not that many compared to the renegades.

It’s been done before. Tyranny is not only perceived,it is sometimes real.

Where has this been done in a Western society, using guns, against an extremely advanced military?