- All Debates
- Popular Debates
- Active Debates
- New Debates
- Open Challenge Debates
- My Challenge Debates
- Accepted Challenges
- Debate Communities
- Argument Waterfall
- New People
- People by Points
Your profile reflects your reputation, it will build itself as you create new debates, write arguments and form new relationships.
Traitors? Seceding, for whatever reason, wasn't treachery. There is no evil in the desire to self-govern. One may question their motives (I detest slavery) but one should also sympathize that the south's economy was heavily reliant on slaves. In addition, all Americans were traitors to the British crown under your definition. It appears then that it only matters if they are "traitors" to a particular empire or in a certain situation.
No, and I've seen no evidence whatsoever that he is. It's funny because if Trump actually did something horrific it'd take a while for people to catch on because he's already been called a fascist, Nazi etc. without good reason. There's nowhere to escalate to from "Trump is literally Hitler", the rhetoric is already at an 11/10.
"Firstly, it assumes violence is the most probable form oppression will take simply because it is the most obvious (and primitive)."
How does being armed not defend from other forms of oppression?
"Secondly, it assumes that your revolver is going to stop the government from either putting you in jail or killing you."
I make no such assumption, however one cannot defend oneself without a weapon. With a weapon you have a chance, without one you are at the mercy of anyone else who has a weapon.
"In fact, the most probable form oppression will take is information control/manipulation, just as we witnessed in Hitler's Germany, Stalin's Russia, and are now witnessing on a comparable scale in modern America."
Information control isn't really taking place in the U.S. in the manner which you are speaking. The reason for this is that the U.S. allows other nations' media, independent media and internet media. As such, people are actually allowed free access to information. I am of course aware of the many problems with corporate media though.
"Finally, I challenge you to find me anybody stupid enough to believe the public are anywhere near as well armed as the government."
There are more guns in the U.S. than people (Source 1). In addition to this, once the government became tyrannical there would be desertions from the military who would bolster the ranks of any resistance, bringing their equipment with them.
Just because you believe in cultural relativism does not mean it is the correct view to hold. For example, one might compare a culture which forces women to marry their rapist (of which there are many, but let's take Lebanon as the example) to a liberal democracy. Is it impossible to make a relative merit judgement on that particular part of the culture, and if not, why is it not possible to make a relative merit judgement on the entire culture?
If there is no difference in the virtues of cultures then would you be in favor of a culture that didn't allow free speech, was ruled by a monarchy, held all non-whites as slaves and practiced genital mutilation? Or would such a culture be inferior to liberal democracies?
We should interpret it as follows: people have the right to bear arms. This is so that they may defend themselves and their property. They may need to defend themselves not only from criminals but also from an oppressive government if one should emerge from within or invade from without.