I would note that 'tyranny' describes a relationship between a government and its governed population - and is not to be confused with foreign policy concepts.
Yes. I was expressing that a lack of literal violence against the American people isn't evidence of a lack of tyranny, despite the common low-brow interpretation of tyranny as being a brutal dictator who guns down opposition. I listed foreign policy involving violence as a common sign of tyranny, but it is not necessarily tyranny in and of itself, no.
Interesting of you to slip "bureaucracy" in there. Can you fight that with guns? We are, after all, discussing the second amendment. More on that point below, but I would note that the "by its very nature" part is, I think, wrong - or at least is ruling out the possibility of a firm governance with liberty as a core value. I think it is false to rule out that possibility.
As others have mentioned, not every evil is fought with a gun. Ideally few are, in fact. As with above, an entrenched and entitled bureaucracy is often a sign of tyranny, but it can also be a tyranny unto itself insofar as it often establishes de facto rule of law that cannot be traced back to any individual who will take responsibility for it. Another name for it is a system absent a leader who can be held responsible for it. Does this ring a bell in American politics now? Most problems in the U.S. now aren't anyone's tangible fault or responsibility even though in some vague sense the Congress or the President can be blamed for most anything.
When you lean on a historical figure's viewpoint, you are subject to the differences between that person's time and ours. Some things don't change, but others do. If we're lucky, people's viewpoints absorb new information without forgetting the lessons of the past. Dead people, however, don't absorb new developments very well.
True. So tell me, do we have new information about human nature as it pertains to politics that was unavailable to the Founders? I'll grant you we have new information, but is it in the sphere of political philosophy, and does this information invalidate what was known in the late 1700's? The one area where I think you're surely right, though, is in the area of technology and how that affects government operation. I would say, however, that in this era of technology we should have more reasons to fear government, not less. The more tools and powers it has (officially or unofficially) the more ways in which people lose control of their lives.
So what does real tyranny look like? Is it foot soldiers running down the streets gunning down dissidents? Is it more like 1984 where there is apparently very little local crime or violence but perpetual violence 'somewhere else' along with regimented thinking? Or is it more like Brave New World where life is a giant party, as least so long as you're part of the privileged class, and where otherwise social mobility is non-existent and divisive ideas have been washed away? The answer is yes. Slavery can look like many different things, some of them not altogether unpleasant. The Matrix covered this angle quite sufficiently, where slavery doesn't have to mean whips and suffering - that is, unless you oppose the system. I think it's best not to focus only on antiquated notions of tyranny when discussing how to prevent tyranny going forward, although they're best not forgotten either.
This is about the 2nd amendment and gun culture. Which tyranny scenario above is relevant? I would argue "only those that present something to shoot at". Other forms of tyranny are fun to discuss but not really relevant here.
We're talking about gun culture but also more broadly about the constitution and worrying about government encroachment. Not every problem is one to shoot at, and the 2nd Amendment isn't only about literally opposing government with arms. Note that the intent in the founding was for there to never be a permanent standing army, and the 2nd plays directly into this fact. Since that reality has changed it does, indeed, alter the context of the 2nd to an extent, but the question in my mind isn't whether or not to ignore it because it's a bit out of date, but rather whether or not the constitution matters. All forms of tyranny are relevant when discussing whether or not the constitution should be ignored rather than changed. I'm all for the idea of drafting new Amendments, but not for ignoring previous ones. The issue here is whether government should be trusted innately or whether it should be doubted innately but certain people in government perhaps respected (hopefully). The gun culture issue is a current topic on this general subject.
But the way of the future for tyranny is in the unseen variety, where it doesn't feel like that at all and where you might even like it. Consider for instance streamlining of opinion and narrative: right now American politics has been divided into tight partisan camps, and even people who don't subscribe to one or the other as stated are obliged to nevertheless pick one for fear the other will win. Thus the continuum of ideas has been narrowed down to two, and those two are at times scarcely distinguishable from each other. Do most people feel like their minds are being controlled or manipulated? Probably not, but they are. This is a relatively new method and isn't what we historically think of as being regimented thought in the sense of thought control from religion, for instance.
This is indeed a problem, but you can't shoot it, and I wouldn't call it "tyranny" of the kind Jefferson spoke. It is a major digression in our topic.
Jefferson spoke about various kinds of tyranny. For instance he cited the greatest danger to American liberty not as being a military dictatorship taking over but rather as a private interest acquiring power over the currency. You can go quite deep inspecting exactly what that means and how far it goes, but that sort of tyranny isn't anything to do with people shooting guns at each other on the streets. It is no digression, believe me. People having their basic freedoms challenged has everything to do with the 2nd right now, just as it has to do with NSA surveillance and other issues of the day. In my view when Sanders discusses Wall Street reform and the NRA discusses executive overreach in a way I think they're both addressing the same basic concern, which is that large powerful forces always try to take more power for themselves and they have to be kept at bay on a regular basis.
Had you lived then, do you think you would have supported the revolution? If so - why? I would invite you to answer your own questions and draw a compelling modern parallel - if you can. I don't think the present and past are as similar as you seem to be implying.
I honestly don't know enough to say. When there's a lot to gain relative to what someone has to lose it's much easier to think of fighting against authority. That being said I'm not actually drawing a direct parallel between the revolutionary Americans vs. the Crown and the current Americans and the federal government. The situations are not equivalent or even similar in many respects. What is common, though, is the understand that
any government will tend towards encroachment if given the chance. The best way to prevent that is for it to not have the tools to do that, of course, but in the case of America the partnership between government and private interests has always kept the door open for this to get worse on a regular basis. I hope I see the day when that door is closed and more trust can exist between the people and its government.
