Does gun control precede tyranny?
"German legislature in 1919 passed a law that effectively banned all private firearm possession, leading the government to confiscate guns already in circulation." "In 1928, the Reichstag relaxed the regulation a bit, but put in place a strict registration regime that required citizens to acquire separate permits to own guns, sell them or carry them." http://www.salon.com/2013/01/11/stop_talking_about_hitler/ Would Hitler have been stopped before WW2 if more Germans were armed? His approval rating wasn't the best and he had to compromise with another political party to win the election. Were the Germans just unable to defend themselves against the military and government tyranny?
Why does Democracy always end in tyranny?
Human nature succumbs to greed, anger and stupidity far too often, once a want to be tyrant gets a taste of power he needs more and becomes addicted, it is easy for them to addict others into thinking that they are the salvation and very bbenevolent all they need is eentitlementsto look like Santa Claus, and apathy, then bingo , end of game they are in total control unless they are kept in check by a very aware pro active public
Should the interned Japanese-Americans have fought this tyranny with firearms?
I think this question is more clever than the other posters give it credit for. It basically asks if the Second Amendment might have prevented the tyrannical actions of the U.S. Government interning innocent American citizens of Japanese descent. Obviously, it would have resulted in a massacre of Japanese-Americans. But maybe if enough losses are incurred by both sides, the government may have eventually gave in and let them be.But would an armed militia prevent the actions of a future tyrannical regime in America? If some roque Commander-in-Chief commands the armed forces to subdue the public, will it help if all the able-bodied citizens are armed to the teeth to protect themselves? Considering the firepower of our military, will that not only lead to unnecessary bloodshed?Or should we use our democratic system to elect officials that will make sensible choices and maintain the checks on the powers that be? Can we depend on the military’s leaders to protest against the government’s actions against its own citizens?In a worst case scenario where the American government turns the military against its citizens and the military leaders don't protest, I'm afraid that even with every adult armed with an AR-15, the military will eventually win out unless the citizens are willing to put up with some massive losses. I believe peaceful protests are more likely to result in a happy ending for all.
Would the Nazis have been able and willing to round up Jews and others if a culture of private firearm ownership had existed among the victims, assuming that it did not at that time?
Would the Nazis have been able and willing to round up Jews and others if a culture of private firearm ownership had existed among the victims, assuming that it did not at that time?I get so sick of the “gun control causes genocide/tyranny” argument. It’s a piss-poor one that does not stand up to historical reality.Hitler made gun ownership easier. Banning Jews from owning guns happened long after he had stripped them of basic civil rights—and it was an attempt to further isolate them an portray them as untrustworthy. Hitler was willing to go to war with empires, so a handful of remaining Jewish civilians were not going to stop him—nor were the other Germans going to come to their defense.Historically Germany had a lot of private fire arms. Hitler made it easier for the average German to have a firearms because it fit with his idea of an ultra military, ultra masculine warrior society. And even of the final days of the Reich as the allies dropped leaflets encouraging the Germans to save themselves, to redeem their nation by over-throwing the Nazis they refused, with people either fighting in the ruins of their nation or committing suicide.As for Lenin, Stalin, Mao et al…well…Lenin and Mao both came to power after winning civil wars. Armed people, whole armies tried to stop them and failed. Stalin survived an invasion by Nazi Germany only to turn it around and defeat Hitler. So does anyone honestly expect peasants to have done what armies couldn’t? Especially since all these people did have a lot of popular support as well? Tyrants are often feared, but tend only to fall if they become hated. And many retain a great deal of popularity.As an American I watch the various armed nut-jobs like the Bundys who claim they are “standing up to the government.” I also know the beliefs of those fools and I wouldn’t trust them to protect me even if the boogeyman was after me, let alone “defend my civil rights.”
Does the 2nd Amendment really protect you against a "tyrannical government"?
Forget the fact that there are other (far more legit) reasons to own weapons. Forget the fact that the average American doesn't even understand what exactly "tyranny" is. "Being able to resist a tyrannical government" has been one of the main arguments supporting looser gun laws. So will having whatever guns you can get really protect you against a "tyrannical government"? If the government put your entire neighborhood on their hit list tomorrow, and you had 5 minutes to respond, what would you do? Assuming you have weapons, you would do the hollywood-worthy thing and fight, right? Protect yourself and your family!? Nevermind the fact that: -You have little to counter the sattelite ocean above you -You have nothing (probably) to counter the advanced tanks that could be sent -You have nothing to counter ballistic and bunker-busting missile technology -You are outnumbered, and hopelessly outgunned...and the technology that would be thrown against you is waaaay out of your ability to adapt Yes, there are many other reasons why people could (and, often, *should) own a weapon. But "protecting yourself from a tyrannical government" is a concept more outdated than slavery.
If liberals want to take away our guns, how are we going to rise up against a tyrannical U.S. government?
“If liberals want to take away our guns, how are we going to rise up against a tyrannical U.S. government?”The first part of your question does not logically lead into the second.Liberals could, for instance, personally go door to door taking away your guns … it might be dangerous for all involved, it might be illegal, but it may not involve the government as a co-conspirator.A tyrannical US government could come into being, but it may not be run by liberals and it may not try to take away your guns.As others have pointed out elsewhere on Quora, gun owners have been slow to ‘rise up against tyranny’. How many white gun owners marched in the civil rights movement, where the mechanisms of government were being used to forcibly put down black Americans? Did gun owners protest and storm the internment camps of Japanese Americans when their government forced these citizens, without trial, without compensation, without due process, into prison? How many gun owners put themselves in harms way when police shoot unarmed civilians, how many would be willing to draw down on that officer who just shot someone in the back, to order them to put down their weapon, to submit to the rule of law?American gun owners seem to come to their own defense and the defense of their kin, but not against tyranny.
Why does society feel like people should blindly obey their employers without question, even if they're abusive tyrants?
People think that an employer is always in the right because of their position over you. What if your employer wants you to do something that goes against your religious beliefs, such as the Bible? How come people say thay employers can do whatever they want?