A “what if” - The Best Online Debate Website | DebateIsland.com - Debate Anything The Best Online Debate Website | DebateIsland.com

Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

The Best Online Debate Website | DebateIsland.com. The only online debate website with Casual, Persuade Me, Formalish, and Formal Online Debate formats. We’re the leading online debate website. Debate popular topics, debate news, or debate anything! Debate online for free! DebateIsland is utilizing Artifical Intelligence to transform online debating.

The best online Debate website - DebateIsland.com! The only Online Debate Website with Casual, Persuade Me, Formalish, and Formal Online Debate formats. We’re the Leading Online Debate website. Debate popular topics, Debate news, or Debate anything! Debate online for free!

A “what if”
in United States

What if our government took away or limited our access to guns and their accessories and then became tyrannical. This would have defeated the purpose of the constitution correct?
Not every quote you read on the internet is true- Abraham Lincoln

Debra AI Prediction

Predicted To Win
Predicted To Win

Details +


  • PlaffelvohfenPlaffelvohfen 1490 Pts
    edited March 2019
    Not sure if there is a direct relation between gun control and Tyranny... I mean, a government could severely restrict or even ban firearm possession and be nonetheless benevolent, like a mother severely restricting drug use for her child is not de facto tyrannical... 

    Also, the argument in favor of the 2nd that claims that firearms are needed in case the government becomes tyrannical, has lost all possible ground with technical advancement... AR-15's won't do sh*t against tanks, drones, Tomahawks or Patriot missiles, etc... It could be helpful in some localized instance but the determining factor that can overthrow a tyrannical government was, is and always will be, the will of the People.

    You can have all the guns you wants, if you don't have the WILL to use them, they're useless... 
    " Adversus absurdum, contumaciter ac ridens! "
  • Any government is tyrannical by its very nature. The only reason that some governments do not get out of control (not too far, at least) is because people do not let them. There are many ways to do so, and threatening the government with guns is merely one of them.

    A government that truly starts exercising its tyrannical traits does far more than just limit people's access to guns. Taking the guns away from people is a necessary, but far from sufficient condition for the tyrants reaching their ultimate goal. Things become really dire when criticising the government becomes dangerous; then, unless something is quickly done, authoritarianism is inevitable.

    Regarding your last point, a tyrannical government does not need the Constitution. If the government controls people, then it can come up with a lot of ways to justify such a state of affairs, and many of them do not involve the Constitution. The Constitution exists to guarantee certain points of the societal organisation that cannot be changed through the general law-making process; essentially its purpose is to prevent people from voting dictators into the government that then demolish the democratic institutes. But if the institutes are already demolished, then the Constitution is obviously irrelevant.

    @Plaffelvohfen I see this point repeated again and again by anti-2nd amendment people. I wonder where such confidence comes from. Talibs with rusty AK-74-s stopped the Soviet army that was, at the time, the second strongest in the world. Finns did it just as well in 1939 with merely outdated sniper rifles. Should I even mention the Rwandan genocide, where people armed literally with nothing but machetes cut the elite governmental military in pieces.

    The war is much more than weaponry contest, so to speak. The context plays the role. It is VERY hard to win a war against partisans regardless of your resources, because, unlike you, partisans fight from their own homes, and you never know who to expect an attack from. Unless you are willing to exterminate the entire population, you are going to have a very bloody war on your hands, which you may very well lose even if your opponents are fighting with clubs and rakes.

    If the US military turns on the US citizens, the citizens will absolutely obliterate it. And that is considering the whole military fights on the governmental side, while a more likely scenario is that the majority of the soldiers will immediately desert and fight the domestic occupants.

    Have you ever tried "fighting" against a cloud of mosquitoes? You are going to lose. Badly. Have you ever stepped into a colony of poisonous red ants? Not a pleasurable experience, let me tell you. Fighting against an armed country-wide rebellion in your own nation is thousand times worse than that. You are going to lose that battle. That is why this is not how typically conquest occurs nowadays. You do not install a dictatorship by forcing your people into submission by violence; you install a dictatorship by changing people's minds about you. You think Lenin or Hitler took power as a result of slaughtering their people? Sure, they resorted to it later, but not before they had systematically brainwashed their people for years to develop the acceptance of the upcoming doom in them.
  • @MayCaesar
    The war is much more than weaponry contest, so to speak
    That's about my point too...

    It's not the guns that counts but the people's will to die for a cause or not... There will be defections from the government side, there always are, it's not a monolithic entity, it's made of people too... I'm not anti-2nd, I don't care if you have guns or not, it ain't my business as long as you don't make it my business.

    But I think though that the tyrannical government argument is really weak, that's all...  
    " Adversus absurdum, contumaciter ac ridens! "
  • Not sure if there is a direct relation between gun control and Tyranny... I mean, a government could severely restrict or even ban firearm possession and be nonetheless benevolent, like a mother severely restricting drug use for her child is not de facto tyrannical... 

    Also, the argument in favor of the 2nd that claims that firearms are needed in case the government becomes tyrannical, has lost all possible ground with technical advancement... AR-15's won't do sh*t against tanks, drones, Tomahawks or Patriot missiles, etc... It could be helpful in some localized instance but the determining factor that can overthrow a tyrannical government was, is and always will be, the will of the People.

    You can have all the guns you wants, if you don't have the WILL to use them, they're useless... 
    This isn't a whole truth Plaffelvohfen the tyrannical governing can take place by the people when that person does not own a gun, and has an effect which regulates the cost of others to own gun, this is done through politics. The common defense in basic principle is made on lethal force not the gun, in united State a military draft is not constitutional as a mandatory legal option of lethal force, yet the ownership and maintenance of a lethal force is constitutional as a United State.

    Gun control. It has nothing to do with Military draft. 
    You just can draft someone to hold your burden lethal force without repercussions.
  • DeeDee 2160 Pts
    So a heavily armed citizenry is the ultimate safeguard of liberty in America?
  • DeeDee 2160 Pts

    You say ....But I think though that the tyrannical government argument is really weak, that's all

    My reply .....I agree it’s a desperate argument . the U S constantly states it has the best military in the world with the best trained people and yet an untrained percentage of the population is going to give them a run for their money.....maybe with muskets and pikes but not a chance in modern warfare 
  • @Dee

    As I wrote elsewhere on DI, there is only one valid argument for the pro-gun crowd... This argument is : F.u.ck off, I like my guns!!

    It's a perfectly valid argument and I'm fine with it, it's not the best argument mind you, but it's the only real one they've got... All the rest is BS... 
    " Adversus absurdum, contumaciter ac ridens! "
  • DeeDee 2160 Pts


    Again I totally agree , most Americans are staggered when I tell them the police force in my country do not carry guns and I live in one of the most peaceful countries in the world according to international rankings , the U S is 64th on the list and yet tells us guns are a perfectly rational and normal right 
  • SharkySharky 101 Pts
    I have also repeatedly heard the argument that the guns citizens own are no match for the military weaponry of the US Armed Forces. The argument is usually used in opposition to the 2nd Amendment and personal gun rights. The way I see it, the argument is perfectly valid; our guns, in an unlimited warfare situation, cannot prevail over tanks, fighter jets, submarines and ICBMs. But the argument has to be made in a vacuum.

    Have you ever heard "never get involved in a land war in Asia"? Why do you think that saying has become a time-honored piece of military advice? It's not because the inhabitants of Central Asia outgun us. It's because you have to be willing to kill ALL of them to defeat them. We are, thankfully, not willing.

    The day our government becomes so authoritarian, tyrannical and brutal that they turn our own military loose on us, several things will happen. First, the government will lose all legitimacy. The military will have mass defections. Almost instantly, a huge and nearly invisible insurgency, armed to the teeth, will form that will overwhelm any "authorities" foolish enough to remain loyal to the government. In the end, the "leaders" who turned on the populace will face street justice and so will those who supported them. The process would be almost unimaginably bloody but the outcome would never be in doubt. 

    I pray that the people of this country never become so complacent, dependent and brainwashed by power mad politicians that they allow their gun rights to be stripped away. Anyone who says, "It can't happen here" is delusional. It can happen anywhere but only if it's allowed to happen. 

    Finally, the United States does not have a gun problem. We have a problem with our mental health system and we have a problem with a criminal class and a justice system that repeatedly turns them out onto our streets. The overwhelming majority of American gun owners are no more a threat to their fellow citizens than Mr. Rogers was. 
  • AlofRIAlofRI 716 Pts
    The likelihood that a democratic government, of, by and for the people, will turn authoritarian is unlikely. We are closer to it NOW than in the years since the revolution. What makes us close? Propaganda that turns unpatriotic people against that government! Plants the seeds of distrust against that government, and arms those who absorb that distrust! The NRA does ALL of that with the help of "outsiders" who have power, and want MORE. WE, are in their way and very hard to defeat … from the outside. So, they come INSIDE, either physically or electronically, looking for "untrusting minds". Allies they can "develop" who will follow a liar and believe that HE (or she), will "preserve their freedom" and let them do as they please. (Exit any thoughts of democracy!

    After WW2, there were thousands of Russians with guns. They were confiscated, one way or another. In the USA there are thousands (millions) of guns. They WILL be confiscated, one way or another, by ANY authoritarian government because THEY make the RULES! THEY enforce them, THEY have control of the MONEY, the services, the means of living, and they WILL get what they want! OR, you will lose your family, friends, livelihood. You CAN mount a guerrilla war. You CAN fight, and likely LOSE, and likely DIE. OR you can defend U.S., patriotically, from the liar, the authoritarian, the propagandist. The choice is OURS, for now, but, "times-a-wasting"...………. better vote wisely, like an educated adult, and not a child worried about losing its toys. Freedom is not a toy to gamble with.
  • SharkySharky 101 Pts

    Yours is an extremely odd argument. You seem to be saying that since we are a government "by the people" that we should fully and unconditionally trust that government to act in our best interests. You contend that distrusting our government is unpatriotic. And you condemn the NRA, an organization that defends the 2nd Amendment, that teaches gun safety and responsible ownership and that promotes shooting sports, as some kind of subversive, anti-government propaganda outfit?

    It occurs to me that you have nearly everything backwards. Our government is not- and never has been- inoculated from corruption, dishonesty or incompetence just because we elect them. Our government, especially in the last century, has conducted itself quite poorly when it comes to serving all of its citizens appropriately. Our government has become, above all else, self-serving, which explains why Congress is inhabited by nearly all career politicians who care little about their constituents and a lot about re-election.

    The American people should be- but largely aren't- ashamed of the fact that the Democratic field for 2020 is a virtual clown car full of old-fashioned Marxists trying to out-promise one another in regards to the free stuff they plan on providing. Any casual student of 20th century history can tell you that the socialist/communist track record of delivering on their promises is one of colossal, inevitable failure. When the promises aren't kept and their power is threatened as a result, these leftists have become dangerous mass murderers over and over again in world history. People who would freely give up their Constitutional rights and display blind loyalty to the government in the name of some warped version of "patriotism" are the real danger to the country. You may as well recruit and elect someone who promises to rule as a tyrant and a dictator. 
  • I am now for gun rights, and stand your ground laws. I don't want a gun, therefore, I won't own one.
  • AlofRIAlofRI 716 Pts
    @Sharky It's not so "odd". The people elect its government. Those elected that don't do their jobs, or abuse it, should be voted out and replaced by someone trustworthy. What is odd is that the powerful (read: filthy rich), have been allowed to BUY their own laws, spend $M's to elect those who CAN'T be trusted, and undermine that government "of, by and for THE PEOPLE. They can prevent those "abusers" from being tossed as long as the abusers "tend to the needs" of those rich and powerful. That is NOT "democracy" It's not the government that is at fault, it's the purchased seats that are destroying it. Distrust of the government we are SUPPOSED to have IS unpatriotic. Distrust of much of THIS government, bought and payed for by runaway capitalism, is very hard to trust. We have to bring it back TO the government it is SUPPOSED to be, a trustworthy government OF the people. Still, if we can get the indecent amount of money out of it, and maybe have term limits, we can get it back.

    YOU seem to think government of ANY kind can not be trusted. We HAVE to get it back or there will be chaos, oligarchy, and a government you WILL trust …. or else. 
    What government do YOU recommend? NO government brings on the "law of the jungle", "survival of the fittest". If I've got it backwards, point me in the "right" direction. I'm willing to listen if you've got answers. It's not likely you can improve on "Demokratia", or direct rule by the people (somewhat socialistic, but, not "Marxist"), invented by the Greeks in 507 BC, and adopted by The U.S. in 1776 … and destroyed, gradually, by the right since 1980.
  • SharkySharky 101 Pts

    Thanks for that response. We probably have some common ground but we view it from far different perspectives.

    I agree that we SHOULD have a government that we trust, especially since we freely elect them. I disagree that they are bought and paid for by the evil capitalist boogeymen that the left loves to highlight with nauseating frequency. The American private sector is almost solely responsible for our continued freedom, our standard of living, our personal wealth and our status as the greatest country the Earth has ever produced. I know it's an overly utilized talking point but the fact is that government produces virtually nothing. Anything that they give first has to be taken away from someone in the private sector. When they produce their giveaways, it's only after they've taken their cut. Why they deserve a cut is anyone's guess. 

    Of course the rich and powerful will financially back their favored candidates. They do this to prevent Big Government from strangling the life out of the private sector. We witnessed this during Obama's administration with a flood of onerous and unnecessary regulations that stifled business and job creation. It's not complicated. Big Government is bad for business and a beaten-down and stymied business community is bad for the people. Fortunately, candidates exist who recognize the importance and necessity of a strong and empowered private sector. 

    Portraying rich people as evil for backing their favored candidates makes no sense unless you are willing to include the leftist billionaires who do the same thing in order to get Big Government candidates elected. They do this in order to facilitate a proto-fascist arrangement where government picks winners and losers. People like Tom Steyer and Elon Musk would be broke with these kinds of "deals" with the government. Yes, there are plenty of circumstances where large corporations do harm to large numbers of people. That is why you see TV ads for massive class-action suits against them every day, the remedy for malfeasance laid out in our legal system. But for the most part, we should be celebrating the American business community which enriches all of us to a degree that is incalculable.

    Government, on the other hand, does no such thing. Yes, we elect them, but that only serves as an indictment of the American electorate for their complacency, ignorance and laziness in researching candidates. A question: Which one can legally take your property, your freedom or even your life; the government or the private sector? Government is inherently dangerous, especially when they reach a level of arrogance and haughtiness that many in Congress display right now. For a group of people who are massively expensive to support and who get practically nothing done on our behalf, we are inexplicably tolerant of these parasites. 

    If the American people knew what was good for them instead of rallying around whoever promises them the most free stuff, they would elect the people who promise to keep government small, unobtrusive and effective. Unfortunately, we appear to be heading in the exact opposite direction and the consequences will undoubtedly be dire. 
  • AlofRIAlofRI 716 Pts
    @Sharky You didn't answer my question. What kind of government do you recommend? Humans have proven that they can NOT live without laws, without someone to prevent excesses, to prevent greed, to prevent the powerful from USING the rest.

    You don't consider allowing someone with an unlimited amount of money to spend it assuring a candidate who will allow them to do as they please, "buying their government"?? I don't know what else to call it.

    During the Obama administration more jobs were "created" than at  any other time, except when driven by a war. Those regulations were to prevent a repeat of what put U.S. in that condition. A non-regulated, "empowered private sector" cares about P_R_O_F_I_T at that particular moment. The fact that customers who run out of money later does nothing to the current CEO. He'll take his bonuses and run, like, I admit, some elected politicians would. Most "regulations" are to PROTECT "the people", NOT to prevent profit. Do YOU think a CEO who raises the price of a $15, life saving drug to around $1000 or more, gives us confidence in private sector "self regulation"?? If all politicians have attained their position with voters who believed the "facts" created and paid for with corporate money, were actual "fact", and they were created to give corporations back far more than they invested IN them …. that's GOOD for the country??

    Since Reagan, the earnings of corporations and their owners, has risen well over 300%, while the people, represented by a government largely elected on $billions invested in "select" politicians, have practically NOTHING to show for their work. They have to work two, or more, jobs per family, their kids live with them after, if they were lucky, they received an education. One accident, or serious illness can spell bankruptcy for them because they don't have the health insurance trade unions once got for them, Reagan destroyed, and medical and drug CORPORATIONS used the opportunity to assure that only the richest corporations could offer (with the workers own large donation), to their people. After all, medical and drug CEO's MUST earn their bonuses!

    Small government?? Some people around the world would LOVE U.S. to have "small government" … "controllable government". One name is Putin. Lower taxes on those with huge sums of money, have to be made up for with higher taxes on those with small amounts of money. It takes just so much money to run, and protect, a large country. Russia is a country with a small government. It's run by just one man … or else. As I said before, small government is much easier to "control".

    State Government?? In the U.S. that allows 50 "small governments" that would allow those with the money to pick off one by one. 50 times the corruption, with NO (or only a small, controllable), federal government (in)-capable of stopping it. Either case, an oligarchy waiting to happen.

    Just like a gambler, most of those who "get the habit" of making money, will NOT QUIT when they have enough. There is NEVER enough, and there is only ONE place to get it … from the "others". You and me. We HAVE to have regulations that prevent that … or at least limit it to levels that don't break us "others". Fair taxation of those with the power (money), is one way. Another is to protect us "others", from exploitation … like $1000, life saving, drugs, or huge bonuses to "health care" CEO's (that want all the deregulation they can "buy").

    Yes. Without necessary regulation, and democracy "for the people", the consequences will be dire!
  • SharkySharky 101 Pts
    @AlofRI ;

    Based on all I've ever learned, our form of government in the US is about the best the world has produced to date. Of course it isn't perfect but when it comes to something as complex as government, expecting perfection is plainly silly.

    Humans absolutely do need laws; there is no question that a small but dangerous percentage of the population will victimize the rest if society doesn't collectively control them. We agree on that. Where we diverge is our opinion on who we need protection from.

    People on the left- both the ruling class and their enablers- have railed against "greed" for centuries now. The ruling class use this supposed "greed" as a political tool to gin up the envy of the lower classes. Personally, I find it strangely amusing and simultaneously sickening that people like the Clintons, the Obamas, Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid and Bernie Sanders get away with demonizing figures from the private sector simply for succeeding and amassing wealth. All of these politicians are themselves fabulously wealthy, multi-millionaires who have only enriched themselves based on connections they've developed in government. None of them are rich based on their government salaries. The difference between multi-millionaire politicians and corporate CEOs is that the politicians produce nothing of any tangible value. And, CEOs who toe the leftist line and collude with Democrats to keep them in power, are NEVER demonized, even though their "greed" is indistinguishable from that of "bad" CEOs.

    Leftist politicians love to paint a picture of successful capitalists as people who engage in theft from the public at large and who only get wealthy at the expense of the little guy. This portrayal is disingenuous at best and outright slander and defamation at worst. Our economy is NOT a zero-sum game. The rich aren't rich because the poor are poor and vice versa. Our economy grows at a somewhat regular rate over the long term, allowing plenty of opportunity for anyone to amass wealth if they are smart and willing to put forth the proper effort. People deal with corporations on a voluntary basis in a free market and they exchange their money for the goods and services that they choose. The only way that corporations generate huge profits is by producing superior products and enticing people to purchase them voluntarily.

    Of course there are occasions when some unscrupulous people do unthinkable things like what Martin Shkreli did with his pharmaceutical company. And look where Shkreli is now. Our system deals with the tiny percentage of people who would abuse the free market and victimize consumers. How the left gets away with portraying ALL corporate CEOs as potential or actual Shkrelis is a sad commentary on the collective intelligence of the American public. CEOs didn't get where they are by being crooks or idiots. They do jobs that 99.9% of the public could never do and if they do not make their companies profitable and successful in the long term, they'll be replaced. 

    As for government regulation, I agree that it is necessary to a certain extent. But as someone who managed several companies for over three decades, I can tell you that a lot of regulatory efforts by government are completely unnecessary, protect no one and only serve to hobble companies and diminish their efficient operations. Overregulation is government make-work and predictably, it always comes from the side of the aisle that favors massive, in-your-face government. 

    Government does precious little well and even less it does efficiently. You can rail against "health care" CEOs all you want but if you really want to see an industry swirl down the tubes, simply institute single-payer, socialized medicine and turn the whole thing over to government bureaucrats. Imagine our entire health care system as one gargantuan VA or DMV. I guarantee that the people of this country will rue the day that they trusted the likes of Bernie Sanders to handle their health care.

    Trusting government is a fool's errand. Politicians, by their very nature, are all about power and control and once they get a taste of it, they'll never get enough. Yes, money influences politics and corporate money influences disproportionately. But what really influences politics is the voting public. I agree that we need term limits but even more, we need a well-educated and well-informed public that will throw the bums out on their ear when it becomes obvious that they are no longer acting in the public interest.    

  • The constitution or the 2nd amendment? I think you should be clear on that one. Anyways if that were to be the case, it wouldn't really. The amendment is about the right to firearms, if the government took away or limited access to firearms, it would be a direct violation of the amendment because the American people are entitled to that right. So the purpose wouldn't be "defeated" but rather it being violated. 
    "Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent. Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent. Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil? Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God? " ~Epicurus

    "Americanism not Globalism, will be our credo." ~Donald Trump

    "A communist is like a crocodile" ~Winston Churchill
Sign In or Register to comment.

Back To Top


| The Best Online Debate Experience!
2019 DebateIsland.com, All rights reserved. DebateIsland.com | The Best Online Debate Experience! Debate topics you care about in a friendly and fun way. Come try us out now. We are totally free!

Contact us

Awesome Debates
Terms of Service

Get In Touch