Trump laments First Amendment: "Our press is allowed to say whatever they want"
144 replies, posted
[QUOTE=Kigen;51257374]
Or maybe you are deluding yourself into thinking governments are all powerful. Which is the exact opposite view that Americans have of their government. [B] The people are all powerful and it is the government that must bend to their collective will.[/B][/QUOTE]
and heres the point you have refused to acknowledge or refute throughout the entire thread despite numerous examples i've listed
what do you do when the collective will of the people is supporting tyranny itself?
you still for some reason separate the people from the government when they're both the same thing; numerous anti-constitutional and tyrannical policies that has been passed or allowed to go on was under the consent of the majority.
you're under a delusion that the government will somehow conform to your narrative, rub their hands in a maniacal manner, and one day march out police & soldiers to confiscate your guns. and the only thing stopping that is the second amendment.
[B]that will never happen because the government has never needed to take away your guns to achieve their expansion of power in this country[/B].
you brought up Nazism, okay cool. do you think if Germans had guns that the nazi would have never been in power or they would have saved the jews? or do you think the germans who were already full of anti-semitic sentiment & anger would have approved of the oppression and support nationalistic policies like they factually did?
we've been literally watching one of two possible presidential choices that wants to ban followers of a major religion from entering our country, enforce ideological tests, stop & frisk, and etc.
do you see the NRA or these "second amendment will stop government tyranny" folks brandishing their rifles and reminding donald of his place? or do you see them outright endorsing him & supporting his policies?
we will never reach the scenario of brave freedom fighters rebelling against the tyrannical government because its more likely these freedom fighters will be voting for the said government in the first place or become too minor to do anything.
Let's be honest lads. It's more than likely the NRA and second amendment supporters would shut down a rebellion than support one. After all, wouldn't an armed rebellion against the government be a threat to the second amendment more than anything?
I've noticed that the "tyranny" argument for the 2nd Amendment typically comes from the people who claim their gun ownership is the key to standing up to the government, while also gushing about how awesome it is that an AC-130 can flatten an area from five miles away. But keep polishing that AR, Jethro.
But on the flip-side, that our government would even be able to do such a thing assumes that our servicemen/women are the sort that would obey the order to open fire on/infringe the rights of their fellow citizens. Personally I have more faith in our troops than that.
[QUOTE=phygon;51257338]The French revolution???[/QUOTE]
The french revolution was fought by civilians with kitchen knives and chair legs on the barricades built from furniture and rubble. Most people who rose up could not afford weapons in France and most weapons were either confiscated from deserting french soldiers refusing to shoot an unarmed, starving and completely oppressed populous (disgruntled after a period of more liberty for the middle class being revoked) or just soldiers trowing off their uniforms and switching sides altogether.
The story in les miserables is a bit of a glorification tbh...
Unarmed civilian uprisings are far more likely to succeed then armed ones, by far.
[editline]25th October 2016[/editline]
[QUOTE=Zero-Point;51257989]I've noticed that the "tyranny" argument for the 2nd Amendment typically comes from the people who claim their gun ownership is the key to standing up to the government, while also gushing about how awesome it is that an AC-130 can flatten an area from five miles away. But keep polishing that AR, Jethro.
But on the flip-side, that our government would even be able to do such a thing assumes that our servicemen/women are the sort that would obey the order to open fire on/infringe the rights of their fellow citizens. Personally I have more faith in our troops than that.[/QUOTE]
some police officers would for some neighbourhoods so it seems.
[QUOTE=lolwutdude;51257806]
we will never reach the scenario of brave freedom fighters rebelling against the tyrannical government because its more likely these freedom fighters will be voting for the said government in the first place or become too minor to do anything.[/QUOTE]
There would never be a scenario of a full scale revolution in the US today, it wouldn't be practical.
The threat of violence however, can be a valuable tool if the situation becomes desperate enough.
Say we have a scenario where reform and free speech are suppressed for years by political corruption. If petitions are ignored, voting is manipulated, and peaceful protests are outlawed or discredited, then the only solution left is to threaten the individuals responsible with guerilla violence like in the Spanish Civil War, or the Irish War of Independence.
There's a difference between a full scale revolution against the government and guerilla tactics last seen by Americans in Vietnam.
In all likelihood, that wouldn't happen either, but the latter is slightly more practical than the former.
[QUOTE=Kigen;51257689]Free speech and free press are very easy to suppress. All you have to do as a dictator is deploy your armed forces (police/military) to take over the TV stations, news papers, etc. Then arrest or kill off the dissidents. A very repeatable pattern. And one that has been repeatedly used throughout history. But a pattern that can be broken when you face armed resistance to that objective. Its not hard to hide executions in concentration camps. It is hard to hide raging gun battles in the streets of the cities.
The German public was completely unaware of the mass extermination in the concentration camps. But they were very much aware of any incidents in which the Nazis faced resistance in such a public manner.[/QUOTE]
We're arguing different things; you're arguing that guns help if you live under dictatorship; I'm arguing that guns don't really prevent your country from turning into one. You can see from the innumerable civil wars and failed uprisings that armed populace is most certainly not a guarantee against oppression. And on the flipside there are many bloodless revolutions, that arguably went through because stakes never rose so high that the government would panic and send in the armed forces. Fall of Soviet Union is a good example.
When citizens at large take up arms, it is damn sure to not be in defense of minorities. In such situation, even an armed minority would be surrounded by equally armed majority.
“Eternal vigilance is the price of liberty; power is ever stealing from the many to the few."
I've always thought this quote means adherence to free expression, accountability and transparency. That voters and public at large must remain aware what their government is doing and for what reasons. A minor digression is fairly easily corrected, but when corruption is ignored and allowed to fester, even armed populace can't prevent things going to shit. Alternatives just are oppression and civil war, and it's often down to luck whether a state can pull a democratic recovery from chaos.
Fucking hell guys... Can we not have another gun debate thread that devolves into arguing hypothetical situations about who would curbstomp who in an armed insurrection? Nobody wins in a civil fucking war.
Back on topic, I think Trump is actually right somewhat about the press. They shouldn't be allowed to spread blatant lies with far reaching consequences with the [B]intent[/B] purpose of spreading misinformation to fulfill a political agenda.
For example, a corporate owned news network or other media agencies should not be able to say "global warming is a hoax" and present it as fact. However they should be freely express whether or not they think global warming is real if they first clearly state or show a large disclaimer that it is only an opinion of the reporter or network and not a factual statement. Otherwise get fined. Other examples of blatant lies including but not limited to:
"Vaccines cause autism"
"People can legally buy guns off the internet or at gunshows without background checks"
"I did not have sexual relations with that woman"
"No Man's Sky will have multiplayer"
Etc...
Oh also they shouldn't be able to modify or cut off previously recoded interviews with the intent of misrepresenting the statements of an interviewee.
Oh, now you want to make America great again by taking a page out of the UK's book? Next you'll demand representation from the Monarchy, filthy Redcoat.
An armed rebellion would fail solely because it wouldn't be rebels vs. The US government, it would be rebels versus every western nation on Earth. Pretty much every country in the West has an interest in the US being stable. At a minimum you'd be looking at a full on NATO intervention. Furthermore an armed rebellion is gonna have some serious issues regarding arms and equipment. If an area in the US is in the verge of rebellion you'd bet your ass the government is gonna pull out any of the serious military hardware or heavily fortify the bases with loyal troops from unseditious areas of the US. I dont care what kind of guns you guys have in your homes, you aren't gonna fight tanks and drones with hunting rifles and ar-15s, and you also arent likely to get any serious firepower, and even if you do its unlikely you'll be able to keep up the logistics to keep fielding those weapons against a sustained attack.
[QUOTE=Mr. Someguy;51253968]The funniest thing about this is that all the pro-Trump media like Breitbart and Infowars would actually become illegal if he instituted a law barring the press from lying.[/QUOTE]
Infowars actually probably doesn't have a press license, so they can generally talk shit
[QUOTE=Kigen;51257374][url]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warsaw_Ghetto_Uprising[/url]
Look at how hard the Nazis had to fight to just kill a few hundred armed Jews. Wow, I guess history is full of lies.[/QUOTE]
[img]http://i.imgur.com/Zmr2Kfg.jpg[/img]
I really don't see your point.
You are not picking a good example to defend your position, anyway. The Jewish uprisings during the Holocaust generally failed pretty badly, but they suffered from unique disadvantages that don't exist in typical insurrections.
[QUOTE=CroGamer002;51253695]2nd Amendment is only thing that matters to these people. They couldn't not care less for 1st nor 4th Amendments.[/QUOTE]
And those of us who like and want to keep as-is/strengthen all of the amendments are just left in the breeze with no real representation. I love freedom of the press as much as I do shooting my mosin, but nobody on Capitol Hill seems to feel the same way.
Damn politicians.
[QUOTE=Kyle902;51267347]An armed rebellion would fail solely because it wouldn't be rebels vs. The US government, it would be rebels versus every western nation on Earth. Pretty much every country in the West has an interest in the US being stable. At a minimum you'd be looking at a full on NATO intervention. Furthermore an armed rebellion is gonna have some serious issues regarding arms and equipment. If an area in the US is in the verge of rebellion you'd bet your ass the government is gonna pull out any of the serious military hardware or heavily fortify the bases with loyal troops from unseditious areas of the US. I dont care what kind of guns you guys have in your homes, you aren't gonna fight tanks and drones with hunting rifles and ar-15s, and you also arent likely to get any serious firepower, and even if you do its unlikely you'll be able to keep up the logistics to keep fielding those weapons against a sustained attack.[/QUOTE]
There is one way to certainly turn the entire population of a nation against you. Invite foreigners in to police them. It does rarely ever goes well for all involved. Because there is certainly one way to get the over-whelming majority of all those armed onto your side. And that is the perception of a foreign invasion. Even if it is at the behest of the federal government. And tanks are mostly useless in an insurgency. People are not idiots, they will not engage a tank unless they have something to take it out with. Which, I might point out, private citizens do have anti-tank weapons. Not missiles, but of the cannon verity. Also, howitzers are privately owned. Anyway, to the people who very much support citizens being armed as a anti-tyranny you just made the case for better arming them. Which, by the way, citizens also do possess all sorts of fun weapons. Its just not something talked about. But regardless, I can promise you the current US military would also join the citizens in removing any foreign troops from this country in such an event. And I'm also pretty sure its unconstitutional for the federal government to get foreign troops to police the country.
[editline]28th October 2016[/editline]
[QUOTE=phaedon;51268124][img]http://i.imgur.com/Zmr2Kfg.jpg[/img]
I really don't see your point.
You are not picking a good example to defend your position, anyway. The Jewish uprisings during the Holocaust generally failed pretty badly, but they suffered from unique disadvantages that don't exist in typical insurrections.[/QUOTE]
They failed badly due to the very few amount of fighters. But they did hold off the Germans for over a month. Think about that, a few hundred and the Germans decided it'd be better to level the city. Do you see our government leveling cities here?
[editline]28th October 2016[/editline]
[QUOTE=TestECull;51271038]And those of us who like and want to keep as-is/strengthen all of the amendments are just left in the breeze with no real representation. I love freedom of the press as much as I do shooting my mosin, but nobody on Capitol Hill seems to feel the same way.
Damn politicians.[/QUOTE]
I too want all our Bill of Rights strengthened. The courts have unfortunately watered down a few of them to suit the interest of federal and state governments. Its sad really, but not surprising because the Supreme Court is not the ultimate decider. There is one other ultimate legal decider, and that is Amending the Constitution to tell the Supreme Court otherwise.
But yeah, I don't feel represented by either party. They both want to expand government power. With things like the Patriot Act (horribly named, nothing patriotic about it), AWB of 1994, "Gun Free School Zones Act", etc.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.