What's new
By:

ok forget gun control. do you believe the US government could turn tyranical.

could or wil the government turn tyranical

  • Yes they can, If there is gun control

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • Yes they can, wether there is gun control or not

    Votes: 5 55.6%

  • No they cannot, if there is gun control

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • No cannot, wether or not there is gun control

    Votes: 3 33.3%

  • Yes they can and they will if there is gun control

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • Yes they can and will wether there is gun control or not

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • They will try but will fail thanks to GUNS

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • dont care about tyranny as long as there is cheese

    Votes: 1 11.1%
  • Total voters
    9
Stoked said:
Why? The current administration has:

Continued the war in Afghanistan, and actually increased the troop levels at some points.

The only reason they withdrew from Iraq is because they were forced to as Iraq would not grant US soldiers immunity from Iraqi courts.

This administration has also increased the drone strikes that have killed civilians.

They have maintained things like NSA spying and the Patriot Act.

All the things that Bush is called a war criminal for Obama did the same thing. He may not have given the order to go in but he sure kept us there. That resulted in thousands and thousands of deaths.

Personally I do not think either President of their admins are war criminals. But if you hit one that way you have to hit both.
Click to expand...

dont forget obama ****ting on the constitution with his pen and phone
 
fishonjazz said:
Less capable? No
Less willing? Yep

I also think that we would fight against ourselves so much that we would not be able to organize ourselves
Click to expand...

Good or bad armed US citizens would have a major impact on the outcome. If there was a leader to rally around(say a defected General supporting democracy) he could probably muster the largest military force in terms of troop numbers the world has ever seen. The US gov may have tanks and aircraft but they would have to maintain control of all that.
 
heyhey said:
Good or bad armed US citizens would have a major impact on the outcome. If there was a leader to rally around(say a defected General supporting democracy) he could probably muster the largest military force in terms of troop numbers the world has ever seen. The US gov may have tanks and aircraft but they would have to maintain control of all that.
Click to expand...

What i see happening is lots and lots of looting, raping, pillaging, etc etc and all the people who would be up for fighting against the government instead barricade themselves in thier homes with thier guns and families and just end up shooting looters, robbers, ect.

I think our country is just too divided, greedy, and selfish to come together as one militia and fight against anyone
 
fishonjazz said:
What i see happening is lots and lots of looting, raping, pillaging, etc etc and all the people who would be up for fighting against the government instead barricade themselves in thier homes with thier guns and families and just end up shooting looters, robbers, ect.

I think our country is just too divided, greedy, and selfish to come together as one militia and fight against anyone
Click to expand...

lol, you have no faith in americans.

but what happens when the dust settles. will they then fight the government?
 
LogGrad98 said:
2002 to 2012? Wow do you have a loose interpretation of tyranical.
Click to expand...

I acknowledge it was an exaggeration, but all three periods did feature individuals being confined with basically no working rights of due process.

Edit to add: By "individuals", I mean specifically American citizens.
 
Stoked said:
Personally I do not think either President of their admins are war criminals. But if you hit one that way you have to hit both.
Click to expand...

Both are in violation of the Geneva convention, although I think Bush was more egregious and high-handed about it.
 
BabyPeterzz said:
IMO, the 2 wars in the middle east were cruel and oppressive. Bush and his admin are war criminals in my book.
Click to expand...

Far cry from tyrannical. The regime they ousted was a true tyrannical regime.
 
Just to be clear on tyrant. Google says...

ty·rant
ˈtīrənt/Submit
noun
1.
a cruel and oppressive ruler.
"the tyrant was deposed by popular demonstrations"
synonyms: dictator, despot, autocrat, authoritarian, oppressor; More
Click to expand...
 
One Brow said:
Both are in violation of the Geneva convention, although I think Bush was more egregious and high-handed about it.
Click to expand...

What part of the geneva convention were they in violation of?
 
[size/HUGE] boobs [/size];899373 said:
How can Obama **** on something that does not exist? constitution was burned in Lincoln's war for the British dude. Obama does not even have to show birth certificate lol.
Click to expand...



your face exist, well he will **** on your face.
 
DutchJazzer said:
incase you are too stupid to know what i mean. is putting the gun control debate on the side for a seconds.

not debating the wether gun control is good or bad. or only this gun should be banned or that gun.
Click to expand...

Honestly, English isn't exactly your strongest skill. I'm to the point where I'd just rather have you post in Dutch. If I see people replying and feel compelled to discover what you actually said, I'll use Google translate. That has to be better than trying to figure out whether what you said makes any sense, was just written poorly in English or if you're a dimwit. Then again, if it translates it into similarly mangled English, all bets are off and I'll have to move to Plan C.
 
If you really think no one under extraordinary rendition was tortured other than under Bush then I have some ocean front property to sell you in the STG.
 
First in my mind is the fact that normal human beings make up our armed forces. They come from all walks of life (less often from extreme wealth, especially in the enlisted ranks) and have all sorts of political views. You tell them to attack or subjugate their fellow Americans and the vast majority would flat out refuse. All members of the U.S. armed forces are sworn to protect and defend the constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic.

So, no. I don't need a gun to defend myself against a tyrant. I need the members of the U.S. military to follow their oath.

But all sorts of things are possible. For tyranny to even be an option there would first have to be an event or a campaign that caused a tremendous amount of fear and distrust and we'd need to know who the enemy was we were fighting. It can't just be the American people in general.

In the event of a civil war, a failed coup, or something like that maybe the military becomes fractured and some are on this side some are on that side. In that sort of situation a population as armed as the U.S. and just as importantly in my mind a population that knows how to effectively use their arms, makes a huge difference.

Even if the military all supported our tyrannical leader, again there has to be a specific enemy. Sure fighter jets, tanks, APCs and all that can squash a horde of armed civilians, but just as we see in other parts of the world, the government can't just decimate entire neighborhoods because a few of the bad guys are there. It negates much of the advantage of all that equipment and favors small arms battles.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page
Back
Top