HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » General Discussion (Forum) » Do you believe individual...

Sat Jan 12, 2013, 05:52 PM

Do you believe individual gun ownership prevents dictatorship, or could do so?

(Note: I'll be starting this same poll in the Gun Control & RKBA...wondering what differences there might be in the responses between there and here.)

Given that somebody in the Pentagon has probably READ "The Art Of War", isn't it likely that, if there was an attempt to impose an actual violent police state on the U.S., those who did so(after gaining the Pentagon's cooperation)would amass unchallegeable force(including nuclear weapons, if necessary)to subdue the populace?

In addition to answering the poll questions, I'd like people here to discuss how realistic they think it would be to successfully carry out armed resistance against the imposition of a Federal dictatorship?
43 votes, 0 passes | Time left: Unlimited
Yes, individual gun ownership can and does prevent dictatorship
7 (16%)
No, it doesn't and it can't
36 (84%)
not sure
0 (0%)
Other
0 (0%)
No Opinion
0 (0%)
Show usernames
Disclaimer: This is an Internet poll

31 replies, 1759 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 31 replies Author Time Post
Reply Do you believe individual gun ownership prevents dictatorship, or could do so? (Original post)
Ken Burch Jan 2013 OP
kestrel91316 Jan 2013 #1
kaboom15 Jan 2013 #17
AverageJoe90 Jan 2013 #20
derby378 Jan 2013 #2
bowens43 Jan 2013 #8
thucythucy Jan 2013 #28
nadinbrzezinski Jan 2013 #3
n2doc Jan 2013 #4
Ken Burch Jan 2013 #10
n2doc Jan 2013 #11
bowens43 Jan 2013 #5
Ken Burch Jan 2013 #7
Kalidurga Jan 2013 #6
and-justice-for-all Jan 2013 #9
former9thward Jan 2013 #16
and-justice-for-all Jan 2013 #31
11 Bravo Jan 2013 #12
Arctic Dave Jan 2013 #13
patrice Jan 2013 #14
TheKentuckian Jan 2013 #15
arely staircase Jan 2013 #18
AverageJoe90 Jan 2013 #19
Spider Jerusalem Jan 2013 #21
ileus Jan 2013 #22
JVS Jan 2013 #23
Ken Burch Jan 2013 #25
Odin2005 Jan 2013 #24
bitchkitty Jan 2013 #26
FarCenter Jan 2013 #27
thucythucy Jan 2013 #29
Oakenshield Jan 2013 #30

Response to Ken Burch (Original post)

Sat Jan 12, 2013, 05:54 PM

1. Sure as hell didn't stop Hitler.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kestrel91316 (Reply #1)

Sat Jan 12, 2013, 07:52 PM

17. Search

 

The Nazi Weapons Act of 1938

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kaboom15 (Reply #17)

Sat Jan 12, 2013, 08:03 PM

20. Yes, but that law was only directed against all enemies of the state and "non-Aryans" in general....

And not the ordinary "aryan" German, especially not those who were members of the Nazi Party.....in fact, the Nazi Party folks were actually encouraged to own guns, believe it or not.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ken Burch (Original post)

Sat Jan 12, 2013, 05:55 PM

2. Gun ownership BY ITSELF may not prevent dictatorship, but it didn't hurt the Founding Fathers

Not every revolution can be as peaceful as Czechoslovakia's. I wish they could, but that's not the way of things.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to derby378 (Reply #2)

Sat Jan 12, 2013, 06:04 PM

8. the revolution was successful because Britain was so far away and the french were on our side.....

without those two factors we would still be subjects of the queen.....

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to derby378 (Reply #2)

Sun Jan 13, 2013, 12:05 AM

28. Without the French fleet and French ground troops

at Yorktown the revolution would have failed.

Not to mention the fact that the colonists early on had access to artillery.

You think maybe the 2nd amendment extends to the right to own cannon?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ken Burch (Original post)

Sat Jan 12, 2013, 05:56 PM

3. Sadam is the poster boy of why it is bunk.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ken Burch (Original post)

Sat Jan 12, 2013, 05:57 PM

4. Yeah, because all of the countries with gun control have been taken over by Fascist dictatorships

It's so Obvious!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to n2doc (Reply #4)

Sat Jan 12, 2013, 06:17 PM

10. I'm not endorsing the proposition that guns stop tyranny

or taking a position on it at all here. This isn't a push poll.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ken Burch (Reply #10)

Sat Jan 12, 2013, 06:20 PM

11. I wasn't really addressing this to you, but to those folks voting 'yes' in your poll n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ken Burch (Original post)

Sat Jan 12, 2013, 05:58 PM

5. Of course not and that was never the intent of the founding fathers......

the 2nd amendment was about PROTECTING the government from foreign and DOMESTIC threats. If the founding fathers weren't so opposed to a standing army the 2nd would never have been written.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bowens43 (Reply #5)

Sat Jan 12, 2013, 06:01 PM

7. I'm not actuall ENDORSING the proposition behind the OP question.

Just trying to see to what degree people here agree with it or disagree with it...and how the views in the GD version of the poll compare to those in the Guns and RKBA version(both of which ask identical questions, btw).

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ken Burch (Original post)

Sat Jan 12, 2013, 05:59 PM

6. It doesn't and it can't.

It didn't even work for the founding fathers. They needed to build armies to fight the British and a governing system. RWers and gun nuts take pride in the strength of our military, yet they think that they and a bunch of yahoos could take out that same military.

What can prevent a dictatorship is being ignored. We have a system that could theoretically overthrow the dictating corporations and the over reaching Red State governments.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ken Burch (Original post)

Sat Jan 12, 2013, 06:16 PM

9. The purpose of the amendment had nothing to do with "tyrannical' Gov.

"well regulated" is at the beginning of that amendment, indicating priority and its importance. So making any new legislation to 'regulate' arms is not an infringement but a priority. The founding fathers did not have a crystal ball, they could not have foreseen just how much society would change with the public accessibility to military grade weapons and 90 round clips, the times have changed and so regulation needs implemented to reflect that.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to and-justice-for-all (Reply #9)

Sat Jan 12, 2013, 07:11 PM

16. You are misusing words.

"well regulated" meant "well trained" as the words were used in the 1700s. The founders had no conception of the word "regulations" as we now use it. It did not exist. It did in fact have to do with tyranny as you would know if you had read the Federalist Papers. The Federalist papers were written to explain different sections of the Constitution. James Madison, author of the 2nd amendment, wrote in Federalist 46:

Besides the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation, the existence of subordinate governments,to which the people are attached, forms a barrier against the enterprises of ambition, more insurmountable than any which a simple government of any form can admit of. Notwithstanding the military establishments in the several kingdoms of Europe, which are carried as far as the public resources will bear, the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms. And it is not certain, that with this aid alone they would not be able to shake off their yokes. But were the people to possess the additional advantages of local governments chosen by themselves, who could collect the national will and direct the national force, and of officers appointed out of the militia, by these governments, and attached both to them and to the militia, it may be affirmed with the greatest assurance, that the throne of every tyranny in Europe would be speedily overturned in spite of the legions which surround it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to former9thward (Reply #16)

Tue Jan 15, 2013, 03:05 PM

31. no I am not, but thanks.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ken Burch (Original post)

Sat Jan 12, 2013, 06:24 PM

12. Apparently "Red Dawn" is three voters' favorite movie.

WOLVERINES!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ken Burch (Original post)

Sat Jan 12, 2013, 06:25 PM

13. Will owning guns keep a bank from foreclosing on your house?

 

Will owning a gun plow the snow from the roads?

We are already close to a police state now, did guns stop that?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ken Burch (Original post)

Sat Jan 12, 2013, 06:37 PM

14. I think it encourages dictatorship. The 2 sides locked into that power struggle dominate

everyone and everything else, because the medium of the struggle is the most violent set of tools there is, guns. No matter pro or con whatever, most people are not on any side at all, but ALL lives are overwhelmed anyway by that minority who ARE engaged on both sides in that excessively violent struggle. The struggle itself becomes the dictator.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ken Burch (Original post)

Sat Jan 12, 2013, 06:54 PM

15. Not a magic insurance policy but it doesn't hurt.

One may be able to eradicate a well equipped populace but subduing and profiting from one is horse of a different color.

Capability is far from always practical and to occupy and control without popular consent requires soft targets aka boots on the ground. There are also plenty of soft targets that are not military and damage that can be done and facilitated that isn't killing people necessarily at all.

For command and control, much (though far from all) of the technological advantage is negated and for commerce you need cooperation. Occupation is never total war, tanks and lighter armor roll, gunships patrol the near air with some top level air support. Awesome advantages but far from unchallengeable, especially when that is far from the usual point. Numbers and territory to cover are also serious issues, the logistics far more daunting than folks making these arguments pretend away with pictures of bombers and and drones, ignoring the reality of locking this country down or what using those pieces of equipment would do and the aftermath.

A heavily armed population must be killed or disarmed to be mastered and yoked.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ken Burch (Original post)

Sat Jan 12, 2013, 07:56 PM

18. Under Saddam, every Iraqi household was allowed one AK47

for home defense.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ken Burch (Original post)

Sat Jan 12, 2013, 08:00 PM

19. To be honest, it might hold it back.....

But just owning guns wouldn't be enough. You would need a massive, actual uprising by the people to have a good chance at destroying a dictatorship.....it's not impossible, but you can't just snap your fingers, either.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ken Burch (Original post)

Sat Jan 12, 2013, 08:15 PM

21. Not really, no

because dictatorship is rarely resisted so long as it maintains some of the semblances of legitimacy and has popular support. Private ownership of weapons was far from uncommon in 1930's Germany; the Nazi government had the support of the people and the appearance of legitimacy. No government can survive without at least the acquiescence of the people. And in modern states which have moved to dictatorship tyranny almost invariably garbs itself in popular support, at least at first.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ken Burch (Original post)

Sat Jan 12, 2013, 08:17 PM

22. The 2A only lets us attempt to not be willing victims.

Until there was some attempt at a dictatorship/invasion the 2A allows us the opportunity not to be willing victims of crime.

Never give up your rights to protect yourself and loved ones...no matter what the changes of successfully doing so are.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ken Burch (Original post)

Sat Jan 12, 2013, 08:18 PM

23. Using nukes to subdue your own population?

I think you need a better translation of Sun Tzu.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JVS (Reply #23)

Sat Jan 12, 2013, 10:37 PM

25. I was using it to illustrate the idea of not fighting unless you went into the battle

with an overwhelming advantage over your opponent.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ken Burch (Original post)

Sat Jan 12, 2013, 09:12 PM

24. It helps wannabe dictators form armed gangs to overthrow the elected government.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ken Burch (Original post)

Sat Jan 12, 2013, 11:14 PM

26. I voted no.

Because there was no choice for HELL NO.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ken Burch (Original post)

Sat Jan 12, 2013, 11:18 PM

27. Dictatorships are installed without violence; They are overthrown by decay and outside force.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ken Burch (Original post)

Sun Jan 13, 2013, 12:09 AM

29. Individual gun ownership did nothing for Shay's Rebellion,

which was crushed by the government in short order.

Nor did it help the Confederacy.

It didn't do much to save the Black Panthers either.

Nor the whackos at Waco.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ken Burch (Original post)

Sun Jan 13, 2013, 01:24 AM

30. Individual Gun ownsership is irrelevenat in the face of a military discatorship

Alex Jones and the rest of these morons would get their fat red neck rear ends blown off the face of the earth if they ever tried to go toe to toe with the military. Pop's Winchester/AR-15/Shotgun isn't worth a darn thing compared to a Tank, or an attack chopper, or one of those drones we're so fond of using now. The technology the military commands today almost completely diminishes the advantage of greater numbers even if the greater numbers has access to firearms.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread