Drones Tanks, we have no chance.... What liberals say.

[_ldsfaqs]

Liberals often say when they are loosing the gun control argument that "well, there is no way we can compete against the government, they have tanks, etc."

Here's a regular joe, putting out the common sense facts.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S4VDxj4pPwQ

[_bcspace]

Historically, liberals have often favored the AK. Of course they'll never admit to it.

Liberals often say when they are loosing the gun control argument that "well, there is no way we can compete against the government, they have tanks, etc."

We weren't supposed to be able to defeat well-armed and organized British formations either, a very good analog to tank vs. small arms.

In addition, liberals often claim it is futile for us to go into other countries such as Iraq and Afghanistan with our tanks and everything else we've got. By this very argument, they are admitting we have plenty of chance against even our own government even if we start with just small arms.

[_krose]

First off, imagined scenarios where we would have to put down a crazy right-wing revolution on our own soil (which would threaten our very existence as a nation) would be absolutely nothing like limited military operations half a world away. Bringing up the American Revolution is especially strange, given the fact that just getting reinforcements to this land at that time was a months-long proposition.

But I'm sure you guys will continue to indulge your nutty fantasies of killing your fellow American soldiers and police officers whenever an election goes the way you don't like.

What I would like you to explain is the justification for the concept. Where do you get the notion that violently overthrowing the elected and constitutionally established government would be legal? Especially considering that very document's specific requirements to put down uprisings and punish treason, and the oaths to protect against domestic enemies?

The "well regulated militia" in the 2nd amendment is specifically for the protection ("security") of the state, not its overthrow.

[_EAllusion]

Democratically elected or not, if a government becomes sufficiently tyrannical, I see no problem with armed rebellion. And given that the country was founded by revolutionaries, it's not surprising that view was shared by the bulk of them. Comparing the American revolution, a war in which the colonies had near parity in arms with the British, were heavily backed by a military superpower in France, and had an opponent busy fighting a global war on a number of fronts, to what scattered gun owners can do against the US military is laughable, though.

[_krose]

Democratically elected or not, if a government becomes sufficiently tyrannical, I see no problem with armed rebellion.

Don't you see an incompatibility between "democratically elected" and "tyrannical"? What people would choose tyranny when given a free democratic choice?

I don't see any scenario in the USA where an overwhelming majority of the people would oppose our government and want it overthrown, while the military still supported it.

[_EAllusion]

Don't you see an incompatibility between "democratically elected" and "tyrannical"?

No. Majorities can get behind tyrannical actions. Our constitution is premised upon a fear of tyranny of the majority. I don't know why you find the concept foreign. Half the United States engaged in legal slavery nearly a 100 years after the American Revolution. That's not tyrannical to you?

What people would choose tyranny when given a free democratic choice?

Adolf Hitler was elected.

I don't see any scenario in the USA where an overwhelming majority of the people would oppose our government and want it overthrown, while the military still supported it.

This has happened to numerous democratic governments with professional militaries around the world. The US isn't in a place where this is likely to happen in the foreseeable future, but it isn't immune to having the dominoes fall in this manner in the right set of circumstances. The gradual accretion of power to the executive and erosion of civil rights doesn't help.

[_krose]

If a large majority wants a new government, of course they should do what they need to do. But if those who think their government is tyrannical are a minority, then no, they do not have the right to force a new government onto the majority of us who do not. There are people who believe our current government is tyrannical -- probably a few on this board -- but most of us don't.

Many were actively trying to violently overthrow it during the 60s and 70s. But most Americans didn't believe groups like the Weather Underground had a legitimate right to bring down the government, even though it was executing an undeclared and illegal war in Vietnam, and forcing kids to go fight against their will.

[_krose]

I don't see any scenario in the USA where an overwhelming majority of the people would oppose our government and want it overthrown, while the military still supported it.

This has happened to numerous democratic governments with professional militaries around the world.

Can you give me some examples?

[_EAllusion]

If a large majority wants a new government, of course they should do what they need to do. But if those who think their government is tyrannical are a minority, then no, they do not have the right to force a new government onto the majority of us who do not.

The majority does not have a right to what it pleases to a minority of people simply because it is the majority. American slaves had every moral right to revolt - moreso than American revolutionaries. Advocates of American colonial independence were a minority position at the time, incidentally. Beyond that, Americans were offered representation in parliament to address grievances and turned it down knowing that they would be consistently outvoted. I don't think people are required to suffer under violations of their rights simply because it is the will of the majority of the people in their political system that they do so. There comes a point where the unjust actions of the government towards a group of people are so severe that it is proper for them to rise against that government. This is the position clearly articulated in the declaration of independence:

That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends [EA: referring to securing the rights of the people], it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.

I suppose you may disagree with the declaration, but it is unclear to me why you do so outside of a naked assertion that majority rule is just rule. That's a losing proposition and if you want to argue it I think it needs further articulation.

There are people who believe our current government is tyrannical -- probably a few on this board -- but most of us don't.

I think that's a separate question from whether it ever is morally permissible for people to violently resist our government, even if that government is democratically elected. I really don't understand why the notion that a majority of people can desire oppressive actions is hard for you. It has happened so often and is a natural state of affairs for people. Democracy was an ugly notion at the time of the American revolution in significant part because it was associated with mobocracy. There was a wide recognition than an unchecked majority will tend towards repression of minorities. That's what we have a constitution that is structured to fundamentally limit the government's power to do that, with varying degrees of success.

[_krose]

The majority does not have a right to [do] what it pleases to a minority of people simply because it is the majority.

Of course I don't disagree with that, and I have not said it. I am a big supporter of guaranteed civil rights. But the practical fact is that a minority taking over without the support of the majority is eventually doomed, as has been borne out in occupied colonies, like South Africa.

I think that's a separate question from whether it ever is morally permissible for people to violently resist our government, even if that government is democratically elected.

I admit that I am very much against violence as a default response, before all other avenues have been exhausted. But your above statement is not my position. Violent resistance to violent oppression can certainly be justified, and may ultimately be the only solution. However, without majority support, an actual overthrow is very unlikely to work out in the long run.

If slaves had successfully risen up and taken over the United States government in 1840, could they have successfully run their new government ruling over the white majority?