Do you think owning guns is an effective way to resist oppressive tyrannical governments and also to defend yourself against external invasions (ex: Russian attacks on Ukraine)?
Yes, it's effective for protection against theft, assault, tyrannical regimes, and external invasions.
No, I don't think citizens should own guns.
I have a different opinion on this matter. (Comment)
Select gender and age to cast your vote:
Please select your age
Are guns effective for defending against tyranny and external invasions?
I do not believe in any kind of violent overthrow of an oppressive government.
Any kind of 'Revolution' is being followed by a 'Counter-Revolution'; violence is only being followed by more violence.
However, I firmly believe in the power of 'Civil Disobedience'.
Some might say the Police and Military will pose an obstacle to any success; but I partially disagree.
I can solely look at it from a British perspective; I am of course fully aware things work differently in other parts of the world.
The Military will pose an issue. Military command is fully aligned with the government and, to use that dirty word, 'Establishment'. Regular 'Rank & File' might want to join any bloodless revolution, but soldiers have been drilled well to obey orders. Some may desert, most will not. However, the Military might be deployed too late; deployment will be as a last resort, and thus could come too late.
The Police. The government in the UK cannot fully rely on the Police. The Police is underfunded, understaffed and starved for resources. Police Officers and Chiefs are not happy; 2 former Secretaries of the Home Office even openly turned against Police forces. If no violence occurs, if no vandalism occurs... the Police has no reason to step in; they might be ordered to do so... but there's a high chance that in this case they will refuse to do so. Police officers still have civilian lives too.
The police and military have guns of course; but we have the numbers. They cannot kill all of us.
External Invasion: Yes, of course it works. While I am oppose to war and the military in general, sadly we live in a world that both, sometimes, are needed. A nation which comes under attack from another nation has the right to defend itself and thus guns will have to be used.
I specifically say *A nation which comes under attack from another nation*:
The UK had a right to defend itself in the Falkland's War. Argentina was the aggressor (we can debate whether the Falklands belongs to the UK or not, but that's a different discussion); the Falkland Islands are British Soil and thus Britain had a right to defend herself. Northern Ireland, however, no; Ireland is not British, it was never British, and it won't stay British. So the claim that the British army defended Britain is nonsense; and they rather failed in defending England itself. While I support the IRA, the bombings in England have to be condemned... but it doesn't change anything about the fact that Britain was, still is, the occupying force and thus the 'aggressor'.
In the UK the armed Forces swear allegiance to the Crown not Parliament. That is a check on the power of Parliament, obviously not something that would be tested and the way Parliament is set up, there is a very limited chance of a tyrannical government. There are heavy rumours that a potential coup was brewing with the Wilson government https://www.declassifieduk.org/a-possible-coup-against-the-labour-government/ also Corbyn was going to be a scene out of Airplane on who got the job of slotting him. The key to owning guns is not the guns but the logistics for the ammunition and having a calibre that you can use. There is a huge difference between a soldier and a civilian in weapons drills, especially if the rules of engagement are ‘at war’ level.
No. If your invaded the army will give you a much better gun for free and it only takes a short while to get you battle ready. The problem with the tyranny argument is defining tyranny. No matter who's in power someone will think they're a tyrant that needs stopped.
Look I don't hate guns themselves, but where I live and in many other places, I've seen it used for more bad than good. So in the end, is it even helping?
I'll share a true story, this woman found out her husband was cheating on her, so she went to our former hardware store purchased a gun, come home and killed her children then killed herself so yes, something in this instance needs to be done and this was a sad story this happened in our City in Pennsylvania USA.
They're better as a deterrent than an actual weapon; civilian mobs fighting armies don't exactly have a great record. It works SOMETIMES, as the existence of the USA (and USM, for that matter) as a sovereign nation shows, but it's not something to bet on. AS a deterrent, though, it's not a coincidence that so many would-be tyrants begin attempts to disarm their citizens early on.
A firearm is not some magical talisman! Daily news routinely reports tragedies borne of lackadaisical gun owner's carelessness! You MUST 'school' yourself and any you allow access to your guns... BOTH when and how to USE them!
You do NOT 'bluff'; producing a firearm SAYS "I am prepared to end YOUR life" Owning a firearm makes YOU 'complicit' for ANYTHING done WITH 'YOUR' gun, whether in YOUR hands or another's~
Absolutely. Japan was preparing to invade our mainland in California. Then during their reconnaissance they determine there were too many armed people civilians and scrapped that idea.
That’s literally how the US came to its independence. Vietnamese effectively thwarted France’s attempt to retake the region just prior to the Vietnam war.
Girl's Behavior 
Guy's Behavior 
Flirting 
Dating 
Relationships 
Fashion & Beauty 
Health & Fitness 
Marriage & Weddings 
Shopping & Gifts 
Technology & Internet 
Break Up & Divorce 
Education & Career 
Entertainment & Arts 
Family & Friends 
Food & Beverage 
Hobbies & Leisure 
Other 
Religion & Spirituality 
Society & Politics 
Sports 
Travel 
Trending & News 
m 
