PDA

View Full Version : Tyranny


choprzrul
12-24-2012, 3:23 PM
Just curious to see people's opinions, so please feel free to post what you think.

Do you think that Wayne LaPierre would have been more effective in his argument against ANY additional laws if he would have finished his thoughts with:

"You know, the 2nd Amendment isn't about guns, the 2nd Amendment is about the citizens of this country having the means to resist tyranny on an individual level. Taking away the most popular sporting rifle of today will seriously reduce the average American's ability to resist tyranny."

He doesn't need to define 'tyranny', but I believe that it can encompass anything from a home invader to a national invader.

IMHO, THAT is what the 2nd Amendment is about. Taking away my AR15 is taking away my ability to effectively resist tyranny.

Now, what say you? Does that position play well to national audiences on the weekend talk shows? Is it time to start educating the average American about the foundation of the 2nd Amendment? Will we ever have success if we don't educate?

.

AC89
12-24-2012, 3:31 PM
The second amendment may protect us from tyranny, however the anti's see that as the governments job. Should LaPierre have said that things would have been worse overall.

IVC
12-24-2012, 3:56 PM
The moment you use word "tyranny" you've lost your audience.

Moonshine
12-24-2012, 4:04 PM
It would have been a PR disaster (as if it didn't come close to that already). All of us here on the forum know the "militia" in the 2nd amendment is gun owners as a whole. Tyrants can't thrive when the populace is armed and said militia is a deterrent. The founding fathers knew this and whether the gun control lobby knows it or not by confiscating arms they are abridging the constitution.

Rackatak
12-24-2012, 4:09 PM
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

Protect this as it is written.

Antis are trying to change something that has worked and has been defended and upheld countless times over 200 plus years. It is what it says period.

GunnerB
12-24-2012, 4:13 PM
National CCW

nothinghere2c
12-24-2012, 4:15 PM
too many people think that could never happen in this country. they will immediately label you a tin foil hat weirdo prepping fool the minute you say "tyranny."

socalbud
12-24-2012, 4:23 PM
Words like tyranny will make the NRA look like a bunch of paranoid anti-government nut jobs. Not a good way to win the public's favor.

Rackatak
12-24-2012, 4:35 PM
Words like tyranny will make the NRA look like a bunch of paranoid anti-government nut jobs. Not a good way to win the public's favor.

But posting that your in favor of an Assault Weapons Ban in multiple other threads is. Dude whether or not you own an AR or AK or bolt or lever action, as firearms owners we're all in this together.:mad::facepalm:

This is like hunters being in favor of banning hounds for chasing bear because they don't hunt bear. Ever hear of divide and conquer?

L84CABO
12-24-2012, 5:25 PM
No. He would not have been anymore effective. He needed to come to the table with more than just, "arm the schools." And if he wasn't prepared to do so, then the NRA should have remained silent. Or at least come with a significantly different message.

And don't get me wrong. I'm not suggesting the NRA should have conceded anything here. I'm purely talking about strategy.

Coming to the table with the message he did, didn't do one bit of good. It only pissed a lot of people off and solidfied a widely held notion by the opposition that the NRA is out of touch. What's worse is that it effectively eliminated the NRA from being included in the discussion. You don't make an announcement that you're calling a press conference to offer a significant message to help and then only come forward with what he did. All it does is make you look like an idiot.

If this is the NRA's position, they simply should have remained, essentially, silent. Express your condolences, etc. Or at the very least they should have simply issued the message in a written statement and not held a press conference.

GREASY357
12-24-2012, 5:39 PM
The moment you use word "tyranny" you've lost your audience.

Not people like us (I'm guessing) WHY worry about losing your audience? Speak the truth and if you lose the audience well... Something I read a few days ago about anti's on here comes to mind. Something along the lines of "they're either intentionally deceitful or just downright ignorant." If you lose people that support a government that is responsible for murdering its own citizens among other things then OH WELL. In the end we have more guns then them. With you on this one OP

southernsnowshoe
12-24-2012, 5:43 PM
How come it wasn't crazy to put armed guards on airplanes (air marshals) after 9/11?

But it's crazy to have armed guards protect our kids?


How come Obama wants to give guns to the muslim brotherhood and mexican drug cartels, but wants to take them away from american citizens?


Boys, we are sliding off the slope real quick. Did you think we would be having these discussions 5 years ago?

I say its time to bring back the minuteman.

chris
12-24-2012, 5:47 PM
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

Protect this as it is written.

Antis are trying to change something that has worked and has been defended and upheld countless times over 200 plus years. It is what it says period.

i had a discussion on facebook and he told me that this was a privalege. so i replied then so is the first amendment and all the others not just the one you dislike.

old bear
12-24-2012, 6:48 PM
Mr. LaPierre's finger pointing at movies and video games as the cause of violence in our country. Then the best the NRA had to offer was armed teachers or security in very school in the country did not play well with the vast majority of Americans. It may be true but the average American did not want or need to hear, "the only way to stop a bad guy with a gun, is a good guy with a gun."
I don't know what I wanted the NRAs' message to be but I was not pleased by what they did say. Why do those of us who enjoy the shooting sports keep shooting Ourselves in the foot so often in the press?

GREASY357
12-24-2012, 7:04 PM
Why do those of us who enjoy the shooting sports keep shooting Ourselves in the foot so often in the press?

Because Suzanna H isn't the one representing us all the time

scrubb
12-24-2012, 7:15 PM
Just curious to see people's opinions, so please feel free to post what you think.

Do you think that Wayne LaPierre would have been more effective in his argument against ANY additional laws if he would have finished his thoughts with:

"You know, the 2nd Amendment isn't about guns, the 2nd Amendment is about the citizens of this country having the means to resist tyranny on an individual level. Taking away the most popular sporting rifle of today will seriously reduce the average American's ability to resist tyranny."

He doesn't need to define 'tyranny', but I believe that it can encompass anything from a home invader to a national invader.

IMHO, THAT is what the 2nd Amendment is about. Taking away my AR15 is taking away my ability to effectively resist tyranny.

Now, what say you? Does that position play well to national audiences on the weekend talk shows? Is it time to start educating the average American about the foundation of the 2nd Amendment? Will we ever have success if we don't educate?

.

Oh my dear lord.......I think that biting the head off a dove would have been more acceptable to the peeps than mentioning tyranny.

rexbo47
12-24-2012, 7:20 PM
Oh my dear lord.......I think that biting the head off a dove would have been more acceptable to the peeps than mentioning tyranny.


Because, God forbid, we call something what it actually is.

Trenchfoot
12-24-2012, 7:33 PM
The problem for me was the tone and the message. WLP seemed very defensive the entire time. To the on the fence person, it looked like he was guilty of something and trying to weasel his way out of it by blaming the media. If you act defensive when nobody is asking you any questions, people think you have something to hide.

I also felt that he didn't sound like a problem solver. He didn't come up with anything different than anyone on this forum was saying less than 24 hours after the shooting. I think had he come out with facts about guns preventing crimes as well as offering a plan to host a conference with legislators on both sides of the aisle, mental health officials and LEO's, about preventing tragedies like this, while protecting our 2A rights, he would have been seen in a more positive light by people that hadn't made up their minds yet.

A lot of my casual shooting, but non gun-owning friends, told me that they felt like he was insincere about wanting to protect our kids, and that he only really cared about the rights of gun owners.

Merkava_4
12-24-2012, 7:35 PM
Words like tyranny will make the NRA look like a bunch of paranoid anti-government nut jobs. Not a good way to win the public's favor.


But that's the main thing of what the 2nd Amendment is all about: it's a hedge against tyranny.

MigNoche
12-24-2012, 7:37 PM
'They' would like tyranny to be the only opposition to tyranny.

Dutch3
12-24-2012, 7:48 PM
I think NRA could do well to hire a better speaker than Mr. La Pierre. I know he is committed to the cause and his head is in the right place, but he doesn't convey it all that well.

Better to deliver simple facts that don't confuse. There are already lots of armed police officers assigned to schools, why was there no mention of that?

The MSM and the Administration are labeling La Pierre as a nutjob for suggesting armed officers in schools without reporting that it is a program that is already in place in some areas. We need accurate reporting of facts instead of emotion and conjecture.

How can this be accomplished?

scrubb
12-24-2012, 7:59 PM
Because, God forbid, we call something what it actually is.

You have to use warm and fuzzy words boss. Peeps frighten easily!
:hide:

IVC
12-24-2012, 8:02 PM
Not people like us (I'm guessing) WHY worry about losing your audience? Speak the truth and if you lose the audience well...

Tyranny is a loaded word. There are better ways to express that firearms are for restricting an out of control government, which in itself is somewhat of a fringe issue in discussion of 2A where we seek to be able to carry for personal self protection against armed criminals.

Sticking to the mainstream cause for 2A and using "small words" makes all the difference. It's much better to say "we support a right of abused woman to be able to protect against her criminal ex husband," then to say "we carry to prevent tyranny."

Rusty Scabbard
12-24-2012, 9:33 PM
Dang. I need to loosen the chin-strap on my tinfoil helmet....
I understand the public perception issue. I agree that our system appears to be at very low risk of facing a tyrannical threat, either foreign or domestic, at least in the near term. But times can change, future crisis or upheavals are inevitable given enough time. "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state....." at least deserves some mention in the national debate on the issue.

mud99
12-24-2012, 10:49 PM
The best thing would be for the NRA to not comment on this at all. They are just adding fuel to the fire.

CBruce
12-24-2012, 10:57 PM
Just curious to see people's opinions, so please feel free to post what you think.

Do you think that Wayne LaPierre would have been more effective in his argument against ANY additional laws if he would have finished his thoughts with:

"You know, the 2nd Amendment isn't about guns, the 2nd Amendment is about the citizens of this country having the means to resist tyranny on an individual level. Taking away the most popular sporting rifle of today will seriously reduce the average American's ability to resist tyranny."

He doesn't need to define 'tyranny', but I believe that it can encompass anything from a home invader to a national invader.

IMHO, THAT is what the 2nd Amendment is about. Taking away my AR15 is taking away my ability to effectively resist tyranny.

Now, what say you? Does that position play well to national audiences on the weekend talk shows? Is it time to start educating the average American about the foundation of the 2nd Amendment? Will we ever have success if we don't educate?

.

NO! Anti-gun people get terrified when gun-rights supporters start mumbling about tyranny, revolution, and saying things like 'just like dem Nazis'. Makes you com across as some wacko gun-nut just itching to shoot up the guv'ment.

nicki
12-24-2012, 11:12 PM
The problem with the "Tyranny" argument is if you are going into the whole "Tyranny line", then you have to go into the "Civil Rights" line.

Unfortunately the leadership of the NRA is not totally on board with the "Civil Rights" line because if they were they would be attacking the Patriot Act, the NDAA, the War on Drugs, RICO, Assett forfeiture, etc. etc.

Nicki

choprzrul
12-25-2012, 6:21 AM
Excellent dialog folks, and I agree with most points.

"Tyranny" is indeed a loaded word that most people have never sat down and thought out it's true meaning, ergo, we need another word or give the public a true definition of tyranny. Since the latter will most likely never happen, we should focus on the former.

What other word, or short phrase, can we substitute for tyranny? What will grab the general public's attention and make them go '..yeah, I can see that...'?

Personal Safety

Cruel use of power

Bullish evil

Terror @ the individual level

Exploitation of the weak

Something that flows well and people can relate to.

.

jonkull
12-25-2012, 7:06 AM
they would be attacking the Patriot Act, the NDAA, the War on Drugs, RICO, Assett forfeiture, etc. etc.

What's funny about this is that anti-gun people attack all of these things (and more) while at the same time saying the 2A is outdated and unnecessary because tyranny can't happen here and the government knows what's best or us.

Trenchfoot
12-25-2012, 7:12 AM
Excellent dialog folks, and I agree with most points.

"Tyranny" is indeed a loaded word that most people have never sat down and thought out it's true meaning, ergo, we need another word or give the public a true definition of tyranny. Since the latter will most likely never happen, we should focus on the former.

What other word, or short phrase, can we substitute for tyranny? What will grab the general public's attention and make them go '..yeah, I can see that...'?

Personal Safety

Cruel use of power

Bullish evil

Terror @ the individual level

Exploitation of the weak

Something that flows well and people can relate to.

.

A gun in a purse is better than a cop 10 miles away.

From the FBI's website, 2011 violent crime statistics:
14,612 murders
83, 425 instances of forcible rape (Not including rapes against males, which are considered aggravated assault or sex offensives...not to mention unreported rapes, date rape, statutory rape, and marital rape)
751,131 aggravated assaults (which is defined as an assault capable of causing death or great bodily harm, usually with a weapon)
345,396 robberies (defined by the taking of property accompanied by force, or threat of force and/or putting the victim in fear.

http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2011/crime-in-the-u.s.-2011/violent-crime/violent-crime

I think the NRA would be wise to go over the databases and police reports to determine how many (or few) of these violent crimes were committed with weapons legally owned by the perpetrator. I would imagine that the odds would be in our favor. We can use this information to prove our points.

Perhaps then people may start to realize that my local, state and federal governments have no right to deny me the ability to defend myself.

I respect and admire our LEO's nationwide, but the reality is, by the nature of the system, cops don't usually stop crimes, they respond to crimes that have already been committed.

Trenchfoot
12-25-2012, 7:16 AM
What's funny about this is that anti-gun people attack all of these things (and more) while at the same time saying the 2A is outdated and unnecessary because tyranny can't happen here and the government knows what's best or us.

By the same token, many legislators that defend the 2A actually voted for these things.

donw
12-25-2012, 7:37 AM
what we see as "Tyranny", and acting on it under the assumption of such, using the 2A as a source, for forcibly attempting to overthrow a "Tyrannical government" would, most likely, be construed as being treason and sedation by government.

can you imagine trying to convince a court that we have a "Tyrannical government"? it ain't gonna happen...not yet anyway

FoxTrot87
12-25-2012, 7:44 AM
rofl:

The 2a is our last hope that you, teachers, unemployed farmers, abused spouses, and every other person of this country will always have a voice. The 2a is protecting the very right you're using to lie, coere, and divide the people.

P.S. In the best interest this country's children, the police are here to apprehend you for the illegal possession of a high-capacity magazine. You now have the rights to due process and remain silent.

Rackatak
12-25-2012, 7:58 AM
A gun in a purse is better than a cop 10 miles away.

From the FBI's website, 2011 violent crime statistics:
14,612 murders
83, 425 instances of forcible rape (Not including rapes against males, which are considered aggravated assault or sex offensives...not to mention unreported rapes, date rape, statutory rape, and marital rape)
751,131 aggravated assaults (which is defined as an assault capable of causing death or great bodily harm, usually with a weapon)
345,396 robberies (defined by the taking of property accompanied by force, or threat of force and/or putting the victim in fear.

http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2011/crime-in-the-u.s.-2011/violent-crime/violent-crime

I think the NRA would be wise to go over the databases and police reports to determine how many (or few) of these violent crimes were committed with weapons legally owned by the perpetrator. I would imagine that the odds would be in our favor. We can use this information to prove our points.

Perhaps then people may start to realize that my local, state and federal governments have no right to deny me the ability to defend myself.

I respect and admire our LEO's nationwide, but the reality is, by the nature of the system, cops don't usually stop crimes, they respond to crimes that have already been committed.

I feel confident that the NRA and every other pro 2A group out there has sliced and diced this data and so have the anti's. It will be spun by each side to suit each argument. That's politics.

This issue is going to be decided by time and money. Courts and Attorneys.

Don't let the facts get in the way!

Ours-"Your Honor, It's known criminals with illegally obtained guns that put innocent lives at stake every day! Look at the statistics! Law abiding gun owners are not a threat to the public."

Theirs-"Your Honor, innocent lives are put at stake every day because of the proliferation of guns in this country! Look at the statistics!

kcstott
12-25-2012, 8:33 AM
The problem is we are so removed from 1775 and the small incident in 1947 that the passion behind the movement in the main stream is gone. Yes the 2A is there purely for us to have a defense against tyranny. But more people that i've talked to simply put down the idea that arms will ever be used again to protect the people from the government.

WLP was an idiot for asking to arm the schools. Again I'll say most teachers are not interested in guns in the least. a lot are dead set against them and would be happy if no one owned a gun. I don't see arming the teachers as a solution. nor do I see arming a select few at the school. Nor off duty cop nor national guard.
My idea is different.
Now granted this would take more money to complete then just arming the school buts it's a better approach. The school need to be redesigned as far as it's lay out goes. Pathways in and out need to set up so that schools are one way in and one way out and the paths do not cross. Then following Israel's lead we set up three rings of security like what should have been done after 9/11 at the air ports.
What I'm preposing is a total mind set change about the security of the country let alone the schools. If this self awareness could be implemented. if the three rings of security imposed, I think we'd have a safer, easier to move through country. The main issue is the same idiots that are anti gun are also the same idiots that live in there own little world everyday and don't pay any attention to what is going on around them.
Most Americans don't want to get involved. it's easier to just turn a blind eye to something that is unimportant to you. Something has to change yes but going after guns is not the right direction. We are no safer now then before 9/11 the TSA is proof.

3RDGEARGRNDRR
12-25-2012, 9:01 AM
AWESOME INFO FOR ANTIGUNNERS AND THE 2A (http://youtu.be/evEg1VNfX3o)

kb58
12-25-2012, 9:04 AM
I don't think the NRA could have said anything that the antis would have accepted. I think of it kind of like religion. You're never going to convince a person that believes in God that there is no God, and you're not likely to covert an athiest into a Bible believing worshiper of God. The antis have been blinded to what is true...

Ironic you use that analogy... the NRA is so close to being a religion that it isn't funny, as many members consider their gun-rights to be all but God-given. And like any religion, believers are all but blind to anything that questions their belief, holding up an ancient text as the only proof they need that they're right. Your comment is the pot calling the kettle black. Sorry, but bringing religion into this is silly as religious people can't hold a candle to some of the extreme beliefs of some gun-owners. Just keeping it apples-to-apples.

mt4design
12-25-2012, 9:21 AM
But that's the main thing of what the 2nd Amendment is all about: it's a hedge against tyranny.

Exactly.

We have a system of Checks and Balances.

The Second Amendment is the ultimate check if the system has been corrupted, circumvented, violated.

That is EXACTLY what is happening in this country.

Denying it isn't a useful way to deal with that fact.

However, the NRA using a term like tyranny to explain its position isn't really useful.

The people that the comment would be directed at would never hear it, let alone give it weight. The people that do see it don't need to have it explained to them.

I wonder if the people who cannot fathom the prospect of tyranny taking root here actually pay any attention at all to things like NDAA, drones over CONUS, targeting killings of Americans overseas without capture and trial, illegal searches, seizures, body cavity searches and both capturing and listening to private information or conversations without a warrant.

THAT is tyranny. You just haven't quite caught up to it yet... or it hasn't caught up to you.

Mike

JimWest
12-25-2012, 10:30 AM
It is painfully obvious from the results of the last election that most of the voting public do not even understand what tyranny is nor could they spell it. For others that care to discern it, Liberty and Tyranny is a great read.

jonkull
12-25-2012, 11:05 AM
By the same token, many legislators that defend the 2A actually voted for these things.

You are correct. As it says in your signature...both parties suck.

choprzrul
12-25-2012, 11:42 AM
Question. Which of the following is/are examples of tyranny?

Assualt & Battery

Home Invasion

National Invasion

Rape

Murder

Armed Robbery

Mugging with a knife

Mugging with a gun



Is it time to shape the definition of 'Tyranny' in the public's mind?

How do we do that?

.

IVC
12-25-2012, 1:44 PM
What other word, or short phrase, can we substitute for tyranny? What will grab the general public's attention and make them go '..yeah, I can see that...'?

"Self defense of last resort."

For example: "When the organized society has broken down and we are facing a murderer who just wants to kill before committing suicide, carrying a firearm provides us with a self defense of last resort, so we can continue to live and return to the normal, modern, organized society."

kcstott
12-25-2012, 3:07 PM
Cruel and oppressive government or rule.
• a nation under such cruel and oppressive government.
• cruel, unreasonable, or arbitrary use of power or control

choprzrul
12-25-2012, 3:21 PM
"Self defense of last resort."

For example: "When the organized society has broken down and we are facing a murderer who just wants to kill before committing suicide, carrying a firearm provides us with a self defense of last resort, so we can continue to live and return to the normal, modern, organized society."


Excellent contribution IVC.

Your thoughts on tweaking your idea to:

Armed Self Defense as a Last Resort.


I have also been thinking about an easy acronym. Something like:

Defense Only When Necessary To Preserve Life (DOWN-TPL )

stay alive- arm yourself

personal security: armed response to attack ( PS: ARTA )

Armed citizens because evil never sleeps

Save life and preserve freedom of rights ( SLAPFOR )

save your live with armed citizen response

SAFE LIFE Secretly Armed For xxxxxx, Living In Freedom Everyday

SIMPLE Security Is My Primary xxxx xxxxx

Life is dear, ....

something catchy, something that sums it all up. I dunno, give me some ideas.....

.

choprzrul
12-25-2012, 3:29 PM
Cruel and oppressive government or rule.
a nation under such cruel and oppressive government.
cruel, unreasonable, or arbitrary use of power or control

Indeed.

Tyranny: A) Bullying with the intent to harm and/or oppress. B)Forcing the will of the strong upon the weak.

.

GoingPro
12-25-2012, 3:31 PM
seems to me that the ones who really dont care are the ones who are getting food stamps/ebt ....they seem to be okay with giving up their rights as long as the govt. gives them money every month. makes me sick

Dellinger
12-25-2012, 3:38 PM
I think you have it right. Front Sight CEO has been bashing the truth down throats for years on this point and has offered to train the school safety folks on his dime. This no longer goes on in Israel where douring the eirly 70's school shootings were common before arming teachers. People who hate guns have a pregidous just like a Panther or a KKK member, based on everything but fact or reality. The object of hatred is so powerful it has to be controlled at all cost, especially when the object of hatred gives the upper hand to the Citizen who is actually the one being controlled. How come it wasn't crazy to put armed guards on airplanes (air marshals) after 9/11?

But it's crazy to have armed guards protect our kids?


How come Obama wants to give guns to the muslim brotherhood and mexican drug cartels, but wants to take them away from american citizens?


Boys, we are sliding off the slope real quick. Did you think we would be having these discussions 5 years ago?

I say its time to bring back the minuteman.

Trenchfoot
12-25-2012, 3:53 PM
seems to me that the ones who really dont care are the ones who are getting food stamps/ebt ....they seem to be okay with giving up their rights as long as the govt. gives them money every month. makes me sick

I don't know, there were a lot of well to do people in Congress and those they represent that didn't have a problem with NDAA.

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/votes/112-2011/s218
http://www.govtrack.us/congress/votes/112-2011/h932

It's easy to blame poor people and people who didn't vote for your guy, but there are plenty of Americans who don't care about certain rights because they don't think they will ever need them.

mud99
12-25-2012, 6:56 PM
there are plenty of Americans who don't care about certain rights because they don't think they will ever need them.

This is the real problem we face.

Flipdude
12-25-2012, 9:19 PM
Just look at our economy at it's present state, millions of Americans depending on the federal government for unemployment checks and other welfare programs. The word tyranny is like poison to them. It's sad to see that most Americans if asked, don't even have a clue who their government officials are! So, no they will never buy that we are under a tyrannical government because they revere them as providers and as such, their government will never harm them. If tyranny does exist, wouldn't dependency on the government be part of their agenda?;)

Rusty Scabbard
12-26-2012, 11:28 AM
Just listened to a great segment by Mark Steyn on the radio this morning. Essentially stating that the American public would be foolish to mortgage their security to an incompetent, in-accountable, overly bureaucratic federal government. Cited as examples, were the recent Benghazi incident, including the news this morning that of the people specifically cited for shortcomings that led to the disaster, none have resigned (as promised), but are merely being shuffled around and given new titles. Also cited was the tremendous oversight and lack of accountability surrounding the 911 attacks.