Aren't any of you concerned that one day your government could become oprressive?

It may not be now, it may not be for many decades yet to come, but are not any of you concerned about the possibility that the government in your country could one day turn on their people?

What guarantee is there that citizens will always have the right to vote? Doesn't true power actually rest with those who possess the means of force?

This isn't just a pro-gun argument. Shouldn't we be thinking about better checks and balances on the power of the military forces? What is to stop a dictator from seizing power one day.

It might not be likely now, but who knows what things will be like another century from now. And for those who say "we'll deal with the situation when it arises", if guns were banned now, what do you think the actual likelihood is that our descendants would be able to get them unbanned as soon as a government coup became an imminent possibility?

Should we not be safeguarding Liberty for the future generations yet to be born? How many people have sacrificed their lives in wars to protect the future of their country?

 

Yes. I am.

It already has.

 

The US Gov't is already oppressive.

 

Not hugely. Anything's possible of course, but I see this as highly unlikely in the foreseeable future. The nature of our political systems (for good and bad) would make it very difficult for anyone with that kind of motivation to gain power. As had already been pointed out (albeit with some highly rhetorical exaggeration), the politicians and their promoters can generally get what they want much more subtly.

It isn't even a pro-gun argument. There is a huge leap of logic between "possibility of highly corrupt government" and "private ownership of personal firearms". Lots of countries where there have been military coups or dictatorial power-grabs also have widespread private firearms. After all, it's often been militias formed of armed individuals who have been involved in the coups.

What checks and balances do they already have and what new ones are you proposing? I personally think it's significant that we have a diverse membership of our militaries which make it unlikely any significant proportion would capitulate with any dangerous dictator. The kind of countries where such events have taken place often had existing social, cultural or tribal divisions within the military structures that a dictator could exploit.

In the UK I think we have a unique check in the admittedly weird situation of being technically a monarchy but effectively a parliamentary democracy - in practice, they could balance each other.

As I've mentioned though, this is really the wrong forum for this discussion though.

 

Given that the government is made up of elected officials who need to be re-elected (or at least have someone from their party elected after them); and the structure of our government includes inherent checks and balances...

A LOT of people would have to simultaneously decide that there was some major benefit in going to war with the very electorate that has supported their election... Which doesn't make any sense.

 

Yea, I'm going with "the government is already oppressive"

However I find local government to be much more oppressive than the feds. The local government is who is lording over you and getting in your face first hand.

 

I lived through the miners' strike here, and came under the Official Secrets Act once. Liberty my arse!

 

What part of the social contract the OP cannot understand?

You give to the government absolute control in administration and a monopoly in violence and they protect your property .
Unless you are willing to give up your property rights do not pick on the government .

 

But...it's the government that has removed my property rights. They hold a perpetual lien on my property payable every year. It is substantial and if I don't pay it they will take my property. They say it's for street, fire and police protection... but then they assess a 9% tax on everything I buy that's also supposed to pay for those things, and income tax that's supposed to pay for those things, and tax my car and gasoline heavily to pay for those things.

On top of it, if I do not maintain my property to their liking, if I don't keep my lawn trim, or if a tree branch falls and I don't pick it up quick enough, they'll punish me.

 

Yes I am.

Right now, I'm worried. What concerns me greatly is the constant erosion of our freedoms and the commensurate increase in size of our government.

- Brady Law and other draconian gun control laws
- the un-Patriot Act (in the name of National Security anybody can be made to disappear? Really?)
- DNA spying on Americans
- Obamacare
- out of control spending and national debt
- etc

Tribble

 

The presumption is that the gutting going on now will eventually stop and possibly reverse, but yes, that's how it's supposed to work.

I'm pretty sure that this doesn't apply here. We are not (yet) a banana republic fractions by undereducated tribal population governed by a representative government in name only.

Yes, that is a good point, and one can only hope.

Just curious, you start your post with " The nature of our political systems..." then you say the above... are you dual citizen?

This is as good as any location for this post if the original intent is to point out that the 2nd Amendment is about keeping the government in line.

--- Tribble

 

I'd suggest that the USA is at as much risk of a military coup by armed citizens as it is of a political coup by dictatorial politicians (in both cases very low).

Ah, I'd edited out the bit that made it clear. I'm British and the OP is (I believe) American so I was answering in the context of both nations (since I think the answers are largely the same anyway).

If it were but the OP admitted it wasn't only about gun-control and I countered that it wasn't about gun-control at all. In fact I'd argue that making this all about private gun ownership of serves to distract from the wider checks and balances we need to maintain.

 

One thing that dictators usually do before they come to power is start weeding out the military forces, preemptively getting rid of those who may oppose them in the future. Another strategy is to create a special separate military force full of loyal supporters. This separate elite force is then used to police the rest of the military forces.

Basically, any time one sees the military using political discrimination in recruitment or promotions, it should be a warning sign. This discrimination is usually subtle, effective without being obvious.

 

OK then, I'll be sure to be on the look-out for that.

 

The government has tanks and missiles and jets. Citizens just have guns. You're not going to win that war by fighting war. The only way to win is diplomatically and getting support from around the world.

 

One day they might, but not today. They shut down.

 

Guess wut??!! The military is composed of...(drum roll)... the PEOPLE!!!!!!! There is only one place in America where you can find a lower rating of our current administration than in the general population, and that is in the Military. Every active service member is sworn to protect the Constitution from ALL enemies, foreign and DOMESTIC.

 

The right wingers who assert their 2d Amendment rights fail to understand that this is only Step One in keeping government from getting tyrannical.

Step Two is even more important as stated by our Founding Fathers: we must dissolve the army.


This is something the delusional right wingers do NOT want to do and it is even more important than having people armed. A shot gun, a bow-and-arrow, a sling shot is worthless when the government has Howitzers, Sherman tanks, destroyers, battle ships, and nuclear weapons. If these mindless delusionals had any sense they would demand that the profit seeking Pentagon be dissolved and all soldiers sent home to their families where they belong. That's what our Founders demanded.

 

Does the War For Southern Independence mean anything?

 

You mean the Civil War?

 

There damned sure wasn't anything civil about it.

I mean the War of Northern Aggression.

 

You mean the war when a few states who have since become welfare queens decided to attempt to succeed because they didn't like the new national policy of treating all human beings as... human beings?

 

I believe history will show they did not succeed, but they did secede. A perusal of history will also show there was no national policy of treating all humans as humans. In fact, slavery was protected and guaranteed under the Constitution and was practiced by the North as well as the South. A farther perusal, presuming you have a teachable spirit that has not been corrupted by the Myth Keepers, will show the South was not permitted to SECEDE ( not succeed ) because the North would lose its tariffs. Just a tad more of a perusal will show it took the Thirteenth Amendment ( the second 13th proposed ) to abolish slavery. That transpired, BTW, after the Yankees had used overwhelming force of arms to maintain the marriage between the North and South.

THE WAR OF YANKEE AGGRESSION WAS ONLY INCIDENTALLY ABOUT SLAVERY!

 

Actually, autocorrect issues aside (I must discuss "success" more frequently than "sucession"), I believe history will show that they neither succeeded nor succeeded, though they attempted both.

As a sign of my "teachable spirit", please feel free to elaborate on what you believe to be the causes of this war (by whatever name you choose to brand it). I presume Abraham Lincoln's 1860 presidential election (during which he campaigned on the platform of ending slavery) had nothing to do with it?

I'm keen to understand your version of "reality", and keen to understand how (similar to many Holocaust deniers) you believe such a widespread conspiracy to conceal the "truth" has been successful for 150 years - only to be revealed at a time (cooincidentally, I'm sure) when there is a dramatic upswing of right-wing extremism.

 

The main causes of the war were (in this order most-least) 1. Economic policy differences. The south depended mostly on crop production while the north was more industry. 2. Federal vs State powers. A huge issue was that many states couldnt agree on fed vs state law conflicts. Feds believed that their rules trumped state rules. Others believed that a Federal law only trumped state law if the state recognized the federal law. 3. Abolitionist movement. It is kind of an underlying issue with 1 and 2. 7 states had already left the union before Lincoln had even been elected also.

For the thread that asks if government oppression is not possible in the USA. I would say it is very possible and has happened before. The Kent State Massacre is one example. Unarmed college students being gunned down by the national guard and local police for protesting against the Vietnam war. This is no different than the Boston Massacre where unarmed civilian were gunned down for protesting taxes.