NationStates Jolt Archive

There is no Myrth option. You must lose one of these rights:

1] The right to bear arms.
2] The right to vote.

Pick! Which would you rather lose?

I'd say ... right to bear arms if I had to choose. My vote is my voice and most rights have been guaranteed through voice rather than by force. (Just ask MLK and Ghandi)

So ... discuss, debate, pull out some hair ... enjoy!

Poll coming.

you get the first, the second is inevitable....

We don't even vote anyway, we tell electorates who to vote for, and even if the person the majority votes for doesn't suit the electorate, he doesn't have to vote for the peoples choice, but BS. Just do away with the voting and save us some time to go buy guns. :rolleyes:

Some of you would seriously be willing to give up on democracy as long as you got to keep your gun?

What form of non-democratic government would you prefer? Feudal system? Anarchist? Communist? Plain old fashioned dictator?

Some of you would seriously be willing to give up on democracy as long as you got to keep your gun?

What form of non-democratic government would you prefer? Feudal system? Anarchist? Communist? Plain old fashioned dictator?
Wait...we don't already have a dictator in office?
:headbang: *is a slave to the wage*

I would keep my right to bear arms and then use those arms to shoot the people that want to take away the vote :p
:mp5: :sniper:

We don't even vote anyway, we tell electorates who to vote for

Only in one particular race for one particular office every four years.

You are aware that there are other public offices, right? There are also referrendums, amendments, bond measures, proposals, tax levies, and a whole host of other things that we, the people, vote on directly.

Only the President has an Electorate and, to be frankly honest, we the people elect the Electorate. You should go to a convention sometime.

I want them both. But if the right to vote is threatened I'm shooting some politicians.

Eh.....Anarchy sucks, unless you have guns. So depending on the weapons, I'd have to go with dictatorship. Not a crappy dictator like Stalin, maybe more like Salazar out of Portugal in the 1960's...

Some of you would seriously be willing to give up on democracy as long as you got to keep your gun?

What form of non-democratic government would you prefer? Feudal system? Anarchist? Communist? Plain old fashioned dictator?
Ideally, anarcho capitalism actually.

What good is democracy, if the majority takes away your natural rights?

I'd love to have both. If I had to choose, I'd choose to lose the first. I wouldn't be happy about it but since I am never going to exercise my (current) right to bear arms, it doesn't really matter.

Also, the second amendment does not (according to the law of the land in the US) guarantee private gun ownership. The NRA will tell you it does, but they are ignoring the Court ruling.

The issue with gun control is the balance between freedom and necessity - the freedom to own firearms of your choice, and the necessity to protect people's rights against other people's aggression.

I would keep my right to bear arms and then use those arms to shoot the people that want to take away the vote :p
:mp5: :sniper:

The people who are taking the right to vote have more guns than you do.

No Myrth option!

Heratic!

Whats to stop someone who takes our right to bear arms from taking our right to vote after they are the only ones with the guns?

Whats to stop someone who takes our right to bear arms from taking our right to vote after they are the only ones with the guns?

In the hypothetical situation posed by Keruvalia, they took your vote away even though you had a gun. Which means having a gun didn't stop them from taking your vote.

There is no Myrth option. You must lose one of these rights:

1] The right to bear arms.
2] The right to vote.

Pick! Which would you rather lose?

I'd say ... right to bear arms if I had to choose. My vote is my voice and most rights have been guaranteed through voice rather than by force. (Just ask MLK and Ghandi)

So ... discuss, debate, pull out some hair ... enjoy!

Poll coming.

But as Gandhi once said: Among the many misdeeds of the British rule in India, history will look upon the act of depriving a whole nation of arms, as the blackest

Pick! Which would you rather lose?
Good idea, but futile I would say.

As you can see, in America people see their little guns as political instruments of some sort.
I'd love to see them turn their glocks on the Government's Abrams and F-18s, but that kind of consideration isn't all that prevalent there.
When Washington was around guns stopped him from doing bad things (and kept the wolves out), so it must work today!

We vote with our guns. Seriously, we retake our right to vote by force of arms. No standing army on earth could overcome us.

Whats to stop someone who takes our right to bear arms from taking our right to vote after they are the only ones with the guns?

Well, this has not happened in democratic countries that never granted citizens the right to bear arms. Personally I find it amusing when people say they need guns to defend themselves from the government. I'm sure thsi made perfect sense when the US was founded, but they have built a lot of missiles and tanks since then. All I'm saying is that guns aren't the only thing standing between democracy and dictatorship is many seem to believe...

Some of you would seriously be willing to give up on democracy as long as you got to keep your gun?

What form of non-democratic government would you prefer? Feudal system? Anarchist? Communist? Plain old fashioned dictator?

MONARCHYSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSS

Good idea, but futile I would say.

As you can see, in America people see their little guns as political instruments of some sort.
I'd love to see them turn their glocks on the Government's Abrams and F-18s, but that kind of consideration isn't all that prevalent there.
When Washington was around guns stopped him from doing bad things (and kept the wolves out), so it must work today!

Look at Iraq, they seem to be doing a damn good job. All tyrannies require the disarming of the population

We vote with our guns. Seriously, we retake our right to vote by force of arms. No standing army on earth could overcome us.
You might like to think that, but really, an indoctrinated, well trained, well equipped, medium to large size army without any qualms about killing dissenters would have no trouble keeping you down.

You might like to think that, but really, an indoctrinated, well trained, well equipped, medium to large size army without any qualms about killing dissenters would have no trouble keeping you down.

But in the real America...that doesn't exist. This is all hypothetical, but I think it is highly unrealistic to believe that a volunteer army would do this against its own population.

Wait...we don't already have a dictator in office?
:headbang: *is a slave to the wage*

No...Bush isnt a dictator...God I'm so sick of people saying Bush is the new Hitler...Bush is a dictator...Bush is a fascist ENOUGH ALREADY. Liberates a country....fights terrorists...gives tax cuts...fights liberalism....Hitler....Holocaust...police state....is a terrorist (argueably)....makes everything state owned....ENOUGH COMPARISONS TO HITLER OR ANY DICTATORS!

You might like to think that, but really, an indoctrinated, well trained, well equipped, medium to large size army without any qualms about killing dissenters would have no trouble keeping you down.

Indoctrinated and well trained don't really go all that well together. Indoctrination stifles independent thinking that quality training fosters. Soldiers are not mindless killing machines.

No...Bush isnt a dictator...God I'm so sick of people saying Bush is the new Hitler...Bush is a dictator...Bush is a fascist ENOUGH ALREADY. Liberates a country....fights terrorists...gives tax cuts...fights liberalism....Hitler....Holocaust...police state....is a terrorist (argueably)....makes everything state owned....ENOUGH COMPARISONS TO HITLER OR ANY DICTATORS!

I completely support you in this.

Policing their own people is probably the most morale degrading activity a soldier can be ordered to perform, it wouldnt last too long and most soldiers would eventually start aiding the civilians.

I completely support you in this.

Thanks...People need to have some fucking respect for their commander in cheif. Loads of Republicans didnt like Clinton, but you didnt see us running around saying Heil Clinton...Seig Heil!!! Clinton is Hitler. God the hypocricy!!

Liberates a country....gives tax cuts...fights liberalism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberalism)....
:rolleyes:

:rolleyes:
lol yes...speak, you have my permission.

Indoctrinated and well trained don't really go all that well together. Indoctrination stifles independent thinking that quality training fosters. Soldiers are not mindless killing machines.
Suprisingly enough, the Waffen-SS was a set of pretty good combat units - and you can say the same about pretty much every special force on the planet (Iranian Revolutionary Guards/Iraqi Republican Guards before they got destroyed in Gulf War II etc)

lol yes...speak, you have my permission.
Thank you very much indeed.

Liberalism comses from the concept of "Liberty". A "Liberal" Party is one that supports individual freedom, rejects government involvement in a person's life, and in its extreme will tend do keep government as small as possible, or even smaller than that.

Libertarians, Anarcho-Capitalists, NeoCons etc are all "liberal".
I understand that in America it is custom to call the left "liberal" (maybe because they want to give liberties to Blacks - If I had to guess this name would've come from the Civil Rights Movement), but it nonetheless is wrong. It's the exact opposite of what you mean!

Thank you very much indeed.

Liberalism comses from the concept of "Liberty". A "Liberal" Party is one that supports individual freedom, rejects government involvement in a person's life, and in its extreme will tend do keep government as small as possible, or even smaller than that.

Libertarians, Anarcho-Capitalists, NeoCons etc are all "liberal".
I understand that in America it is custom to call the left "liberal" (maybe because they want to give liberties to Blacks - If I had to guess this name would've come from the Civil Rights Movement), but it nonetheless is wrong. It's the exact opposite of what you mean!

Its not often that I am totally corrected, so congrats...Your absolutly right. I know what liberal stands for...however being an American I am of course refering to the present day liberals. But you are right in a general sense...good call.

I'd love to have both. If I had to choose, I'd choose to lose the first. I wouldn't be happy about it but since I am never going to exercise my (current) right to bear arms, it doesn't really matter.

Also, the second amendment does not (according to the law of the land in the US) guarantee private gun ownership. The NRA will tell you it does, but they are ignoring the Court ruling.

The issue with gun control is the balance between freedom and necessity - the freedom to own firearms of your choice, and the necessity to protect people's rights against other people's aggression.

Then by that logic, it is the only amendment that does not protect an individual right. :confused:

As the second amendment to the Constitution, I find that really hard to believe. And did SCOTUS uphold such a ruling?

Suprisingly enough, the Waffen-SS was a set of pretty good combat units - and you can say the same about pretty much every special force on the planet (Iranian Revolutionary Guards/Iraqi Republican Guards before they got destroyed in Gulf War II etc)

A true believer isn't indoctrinated. Indoctrinated people have had an idea beaten into thier head until they know nothing else. A true believe knows that what they are doing, no matter what it is, is ok as long as it supports the cause. True believers are scary.

A true believer isn't indoctrinated.
And you don't think you could find plenty of people in the US Armed Forces who'd believe that suspending the right to vote is vital in the war against terror, or to keep "liberals" (sic) out of office.
Doesn't need the entire army, just enough to man a few divisions. Those could keep control of enough major cities to keep a totalitarian system intact.

I'm confused.

I see the statements along these lines:

1)No army could keep down the american people, we have guns!
2)A trained army could
3)Yes, but we're talking about a domestic army. Otherwise the American army would defend us
4)A domestic army could keep the people down
5)Yes, but they'd be policing their own people, and that ruins morale, and soon they would be helping the people instead of policing them

That makes sense. The thing that confuses me is, why are the guns necessary? Surely if the domestic army would have its morale ruined and help the people, then it's not necessary to arm the population, as the domestic army would come to their aid (and, I assume, bring their guns)

And, surely, if I was an army Joe, and I was running around herding up unarmed people, I'd be much more sympathetic. If I was herding up people who'd shoot at me from their windows with glocks, I'd be much more likely to shoot back with my AK. And I'd have much less symapthy for the "rebels" who shot my friend.

Is this argument described above flawed, or have I missed something?
Or is there some other use for people to have guns to protect themselves from the government?

And you don't think you could find plenty of people in the US Armed Forces who'd believe that suspending the right to vote is vital in the war against terror, or to keep "liberals" (sic) out of office.
Doesn't need the entire army, just enough to man a few divisions. Those could keep control of enough major cities to keep a totalitarian system intact.

No, I don't think you could find plenty of people in the USAFs who'd believe in that. Just because they are generally conservative doesn't mean they are idiots.

No, I don't think you could find plenty of people in the USAFs who'd believe in that. Just because they are generally conservative doesn't mean they are idiots.

Alright lets not crack on the right, please.

I'd rather lose the right to vote. If everyone is well armed, they can revolt and take back their right to vote.

You lose the right to vote, you can't vote any more.

You lose the right to bear arms, you can still bear arms.

No-brainer.

I'm confused.

The thing that confuses me is, why are the guns necessary? Surely if the domestic army would have its morale ruined and help the people, then it's not necessary to arm the population, as the domestic army would come to their aid (and, I assume, bring their guns)

And, surely, if I was an army Joe, and I was running around herding up unarmed people, I'd be much more sympathetic. If I was herding up people who'd shoot at me from their windows with glocks, I'd be much more likely to shoot back with my AK. And I'd have much less symapthy for the "rebels" who shot my friend.

Is this argument described above flawed, or have I missed something?

People underestimate partisans. The American revolution would not have been fought or won if the people didn't have guns. The French Revolution would not have occured if the Bastile wasn't stormed and the French citizenship didn't raid its armories. If it weren't for citizens with guns, Afghanistan would've fell to the Soviet Union.

Another thing you have to realize is that in America we out number our military by more than 200 to 1. Those numbers are astonishing. Two divisions would not hold major cities, I can guarantee you of that.

The vast majority of those nations past and present where guns are monopolized by the government are the most oppressive regimes in the history of the world, and the first thing tyrannts do is disarm their people.


Or is there some other use for people to have guns to protect themselves from the government?


Guns can also protect citizens from criminals, and few neglect to mention that the vast minority of crimes are perpetrated with legal firearms. You are more likely to be killed by a baseball bat, or a rolling pin in this country than by a legally purchased fire arm. By some estimates over 2 million lives are saved every year by responsible legal gun owners.

I will be happy to support my arguments, if you anyone disagrees.

I'd rather lose number 2. As long as I had the right to bear arms, I could fight back for my right to vote.

Alright lets not crack on the right, please.

I'm not :] I consider myself fairly conservative, though now a days I tend to be very moderate. You are looking at a registered Republican here.

Guns, definately. I'm much more worried about what so-called "moderates" will do to our government than a totalitarian takeover.

There is no Myrth option. You must lose one of these rights:

1] The right to bear arms.
2] The right to vote.

Pick! Which would you rather lose?

I'd say ... right to bear arms if I had to choose. My vote is my voice and most rights have been guaranteed through voice rather than by force. (Just ask MLK and Ghandi)

So ... discuss, debate, pull out some hair ... enjoy!

Poll coming.
Well, let's see ... defend my rights ( ALL of them! ) with my own skills and my own weapons, or just roll over and play dead and give up my right to vote. Hmmm! What a difficult choice! Riiiiiight! :D

I'm confused.
Why doesn't anyone answer him?

Either the US Army wouldn't hurt Americans (we know the FBI and the CIA don't mind if it is to fight Terrorism) - then it doesn't matter whether or not you have guns, for you wouldn't have to fight them.

Or the US Army would hurt Americans, in which case your handguns and hunting rifles are hardly going to be enough to keep tanks, planes and nukes from you.
Plus, if you shoot at a US Soldier (ie using your gun for political purposes) wouldn't you be being counterproductive? If you shot a soldier, you can be pretty sure that his mates are not going to sit back and let it happen.

Why doesn't anyone answer him?

Either the US Army wouldn't hurt Americans (we know the FBI and the CIA don't mind if it is to fight Terrorism) - then it doesn't matter whether or not you have guns, for you wouldn't have to fight them.

Or the US Army would hurt Americans, in which case your handguns and hunting rifles are hardly going to be enough to keep tanks, planes and nukes from you.
Plus, if you shoot at a US Soldier (ie using your gun for political purposes) wouldn't you be being counterproductive? If you shot a soldier, you can be pretty sure that his mates are not going to sit back and let it happen.

He was answered, several times, by myself and others.

Libertarians, Anarcho-Capitalists, NeoCons etc are all "liberal". I understand that in America it is custom to call the left "liberal" (maybe because they want to give liberties to Blacks - If I had to guess this name would've come from the Civil Rights Movement), but it nonetheless is wrong. It's the exact opposite of what you mean!
That's incorrect in modern usage. It was the correct definition in the 19th century, when the term first originated, but the meaning has shifted. Liberal and left-wing are synonymous; if you don't believe me check it out in a thesaurus. Wait, nevermind, here's the link. (http://thesaurus.reference.com/search?q=left-wing)

I'm confused.

I see the statements along these lines:

1)No army could keep down the american people, we have guns!
2)A trained army could
3)Yes, but we're talking about a domestic army. Otherwise the American army would defend us
4)A domestic army could keep the people down
5)Yes, but they'd be policing their own people, and that ruins morale, and soon they would be helping the people instead of policing them

That makes sense. The thing that confuses me is, why are the guns necessary? Surely if the domestic army would have its morale ruined and help the people, then it's not necessary to arm the population, as the domestic army would come to their aid (and, I assume, bring their guns)

And, surely, if I was an army Joe, and I was running around herding up unarmed people, I'd be much more sympathetic. If I was herding up people who'd shoot at me from their windows with glocks, I'd be much more likely to shoot back with my AK. And I'd have much less symapthy for the "rebels" who shot my friend.

Is this argument described above flawed, or have I missed something?
Or is there some other use for people to have guns to protect themselves from the government?
SNAP! You hit the nail on the head with this one.

Well, let's see ... defend my rights ( ALL of them! ) with my own skills and my own weapons, or just roll over and play dead and give up my right to vote. Hmmm! What a difficult choice! Riiiiiight! :D
That's a gross misinterpretation of the situation. There are no contingent circumstances here; it's not like this is a hypothetical where America has been taken over by totalitarians. Rather, given the current political climate, which right would you rather lose? Frankly, guns are useless as anything other than a hot-button issue in modern politics. We can't kill politicians we disagree with. The ballot is a much more effective means of creating change. Plus, no one's really answered the argument that losing the right to bear arms doesn't mean you can't bear arms, while losing the right to vote does mean you can't vote.

That's a gross misinterpretation of the situation. There are no contingent circumstances here; it's not like this is a hypothetical where America has been taken over by totalitarians. Rather, given the current political climate, which right would you rather lose? Frankly, guns are useless as anything other than a hot-button issue in modern politics. We can't kill politicians we disagree with. The ballot is a much more effective means of creating change. Plus, no one's really answered the argument that losing the right to bear arms doesn't mean you can't bear arms, while losing the right to vote does mean you can't vote.
How is my post a "gross misinterpretation of the situation? If someone takes away my means to insure that my family is free, they can deny anything they like, including my right to vote. It's just that simple.

That's a gross misinterpretation of the situation. There are no contingent circumstances here; it's not like this is a hypothetical where America has been taken over by totalitarians. Rather, given the current political climate, which right would you rather lose? Frankly, guns are useless as anything other than a hot-button issue in modern politics. We can't kill politicians we disagree with. The ballot is a much more effective means of creating change. Plus, no one's really answered the argument that losing the right to bear arms doesn't mean you can't bear arms, while losing the right to vote does mean you can't vote.

Then this whole thing is moot. The conditions of this do not spawn any kind of intelligent debate, you are basically asking us if we would rather vote or look at our gun rack.

You cannot make this kind of thing ceteris paribus, when the entire debate is contigent on outside variables.

He was answered, several times, by myself and others.
Not at the time I started writing my post... ;)
So essentially you are saying that the US Army would attack its own people, but that you could defeat them.
So do you think you guys are better at fighting than the Iraqi Insurgency?

That's incorrect in modern usage. It was the correct definition in the 19th century, when the term first originated, but the meaning has shifted. Liberal and left-wing are synonymous; if you don't believe me check it out in a thesaurus. Wait, nevermind, here's the link. (http://thesaurus.reference.com/search?q=left-wing)
That's what I meant when I said it has become a custom in the states to use the word like that - but not in Britain, not in Australia, and especially not in countries that don't speak English.
I understand that I'm not going to change a habit of somewhere between 250million and 300million people just like that, but it annoys and sometimes confuses me nonetheless.

And maybe it would be interesting why the left would suddenly be called something that (in the beginning at least) would be the total opposite. Is my Civil Rights Movement idea true?

So essentially you are saying that the US Army would attack its own people, but that you could defeat them.
So do you think you guys are better at fighting than the Iraqi Insurgency?

No, I don't think that the US Army would attack its own people. The Marine Corps on the other hand, is a different story ;). Also we vastly outnumber the iraqi insurgency, even by In-Country standards. You cannot say that the United States Army in Iraq is facing a 200 to 1 disadvantage, especially when the insurgency represents a vast minority of the population, and in many cases is not even part of the population.

I'm not saying we are better, are you saying we are worse?



And maybe it would be interesting why the left would suddenly be called something that (in the beginning at least) would be the total opposite. Is my Civil Rights Movement idea true?

Not true at all, not talking about your theory but the fact that the definition changed. Liberalism still means what it meant during the enlightenment, modern left wingers are Liberals, not liberals. The capital letter means a lot. Just like people who believe in a republican form of government are republicans while people who are in the political party of George Bush are Republicans. Same to be said for Democrats.

Disarming Americans would not provide for any safe environment, it would incite revolt and the death of those who would try and disarm us. Anybody who would try to disarm the people deserves their death.

-----------------------------------
"The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government."
- Thomas Jefferson -

"No freeman shall ever be debarred the use of arms."
-- Thomas Jefferson, Draft Virginia Constitution, June 1776

“Laws that forbid the carrying of arms...disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes... Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man.” Thomas Jefferson, Quoting Cesare Beccaria

"The beauty of the Second Amendment is that it will not be needed until they try to take it." Thomas Jefferson

"God forbid we should ever be twenty years without such a rebellion. The people cannot be all, and always, well informed. The part which is wrong will be discontented, in proportion to the importance of the facts they misconceive. If they remain quiet under such misconceptions, it is lethargy, the forerunner of death to the public liberty.... And what country can preserve its liberties, if its rulers are not warned from time to time, that this people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms. The remedy is to set them right as to the facts, pardon and pacify them. What signify a few lives lost in a century or two? The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time, with the blood of patriots and tyrants. It is its natural manure." - Thomas Jefferson

I'm not saying we are better, are you saying we are worse?
In a way, yes.
The vast majority of Americans have become relatively disinterested in politics for the most part. In some areas, I would imagine, there will be people who just couldn't give a shit.

Then (juust maybe) there is the obesity issue.... :D

You can't imagine that 200:1 would actually be true, for many wouldn't fight for one reason or another.

And finally, how would you organise an actual revolt? You'd have to have leaders and the like, and to capture Washington, or the Nuclear Bunkers, or wherever the Prez would be hiding, you'd need huge numbers of people. And those can be stopped by a few Marines/other Fanatics with an Apache, or a B-52.
You could make civil war, that's true. But like the Partisans in Russia, Greece, Yugoslavia etc, you couldn't actually win a war.

How is my post a "gross misinterpretation of the situation? If someone takes away my means to insure that my family is free, they can deny anything they like, including my right to vote. It's just that simple.
It's the can/will distinction. But I'm getting ahead of myself. I'll start with your first statement, that taking away a legal right to bear arms prevents you from defending your family. First, you will always be able to procure weapons on the black market - legal prohibitions mean jack diddly in regards to weapons proliferation, a point which the NRA and its ilk make oh-so-effectively. Second, there are other weapons that are equally effective you can use to defend your household from attackers: a hunting crossbow, tazer, hand-to-hand weapons, etc.

Now, if you turn out to be correct that only with guns can you protect yourself, the right to vote is still more important than the right to bear arms. First, a technicality - taking away your right to bear arms doesn't mean that a law immediately passes prohibiting them, just there's no check against that law being passed. So in a world where you lose the right to bear arms, you don't lose those arms, going to the can/will distinction I drew earlier. Just because you may not necessarily be able to have weapons doesn't mean you're prohibited from having them or that anyone would want to take those weapons from you. Second, if one can't vote, one can't prevent legal prohibitions against the right to bear arms - so in a world where people want to take away your right to bear arms, taking away the vote would allow them to do that. Third, you've still given no reason as to why guns are comparatively more important than the vote in terms of modern politics for preserving freedoms. I explained this argument earlier. Fourth, there is no totalitarian American state now. It's paranoic to think one's going to arise in the near future. So let's worry about certain politicians who work inside the system who are much more insidiously taking away freedoms and rights, which only voting can counter.

What, you mean I already lost my right to vote Myrth on the poll.

That said, I would lose the right bear arms. My vote is my influence in this country. And with it I can change more, for the better, than I could with my gun. At least in my eyes.

-snip-
"Whosoever shall be guilty of rape, polygamy, or sodomy with a man or woman, shall be punished; if a man, by castration, a woman, by boring through the cartilage of her nose a hole of one half inch in diameter at the least."

Thomas Jefferson, in the Virginia Bill number 64, 18 June 1779

If it weren't for citizens with guns, Afghanistan would've fell to the Soviet Union.

... and Iraq would have fallen to the United States.

Oh, wait, we're not up to that chapter yet. Never mind. Carry on. I was never here.

That's what I meant when I said it has become a custom in the states to use the word like that - but not in Britain, not in Australia, and especially not in countries that don't speak English.
I understand that I'm not going to change a habit of somewhere between 250million and 300million people just like that, but it annoys and sometimes confuses me nonetheless.
That's fairly amusing, because it annoys and confuses me when people use the terms to mean different things. Just one of those various cross-pond cultural differences, I guess.

And maybe it would be interesting why the left would suddenly be called something that (in the beginning at least) would be the total opposite. Is my Civil Rights Movement idea true?
Well, see, they didn't mean the exact opposite thing. Liberal, in its inception, meant what we now call libertarian, which is opposite what you term the left on economic issues, yes, but they agree on social issues, so they're not exactly polar opposites. I think the answer to your question lies in 19th century history. Liberal movements at the time believed in change from the oppressive, authoritarian, vaguely anti-free market dictatorships that dominated much of Europe at the time, so liberal took on the double meaning of someone who wanted to change the status quo. Therefore, leftists, who generally believe in changing the way society currently operates, took that meaning of the word liberal and applied it to themselves, particularly given that these groups rose out of the ashes of the old liberal groups after democratic revolutions.

...Therefore, leftists, who generally believe in changing the way society currently operates, took that meaning of the word liberal and applied it to themselves, particularly given that these groups rose out of the ashes of the old liberal groups after democratic revolutions.
But only in the states?

There is no Myrth option. You must lose one of these rights:

1] The right to bear arms.
2] The right to vote.

Pick! Which would you rather lose?

I'd say ... right to bear arms if I had to choose. My vote is my voice and most rights have been guaranteed through voice rather than by force. (Just ask MLK and Ghandi)

So ... discuss, debate, pull out some hair ... enjoy!

Poll coming.

we arent as civilized as people like to daydream about...no thanks...guesss i will be the first in the re education camp...lol...screw you and all the people that think they know better then me...i dont bother no one...but dont come to my home and tell me how to live...if i hurt someone for no reason...hang me in the village square..tyvm...

you lose the 2nd..the 1st is inevitable...or just ask the jews in germany or stalin's game plan people.......from my cold dead hands..lol...corny but true...i would rathr be dead then have some dimwit tell me they know better.

To the "tyrrants take away guns from the citizenry" folks: What about England? Canada? Sweden?

I wasn't aware those countries were under the iron fist of brutal dictatorships.

...from my cold dead hands..lol...corny but true...i would rathr be dead then have some dimwit tell me they know better.
You're a product of the society you live in. Everyone is.
Which is why I think it's pointless to argue about this.
In Europe, the gun is recognised as what it is: a weapon. It is used to kill people, to hurt people. It has brought Europe more pain than anyone would ever want to see again.
In America, the gun is recognised for what is represents: Independence, and the power to defend oneself. I'm in no position to comment on that, I cannot possibly hope to understand.

Suffice to say that neither is going to understand the other side.

To the "tyrrants take away guns from the citizenry" folks: What about England? Canada? Sweden?

I wasn't aware those countries were under the iron fist of brutal dictatorships.

Oh? Oh yea, Britain is a Monarchy and Canada is under that Monarchy and pays homage to a Governor General who is appointed by the Queen of England.

But only in the states?
Perhaps, given our particularities about nomenclature. It could also be a result of certain political polarizations inside the United States. It was just a hypothesis that may or may not be true. That just seems to be a fairly historically accurate description of the evolution of European political parties which the change in name would correspond to. However, if it's really true that nowhere in Europe are the two terms used synonymously, then either the conflation was a result of trends in the US or trends in Europe made the words mean different things after they came to mean the same.

To the "tyrrants take away guns from the citizenry" folks: What about England? Canada? Sweden?

I wasn't aware those countries were under the iron fist of brutal dictatorships.

Yeah, but how do Brits, Canadians, Swedes, etc. defend themselves when their homes are being robbed, if the robbers have guns and they don't?

In America, the gun is recognised for what is represents: Independence, and the power to defend oneself. I'm in no position to comment on that, I cannot possibly hope to understand.
That's not what it means to this American. I'd rather be a figurative bleeding heart than a literal one.

Oh? Oh yea, Britain is a Monarchy and Canada is under that Monarchy and pays homage to a Governor General who is appointed by the Queen of England.
Your ignorance of the true political system reveals itself. Need I say "constitutional monarchy?"

Neither...I wouldn't allow my government to take away my rights.

Unlike other countries, Americans have a tendency to be cocky, arrogant and hard-nosed. If the government ever tried to take guns away, then they would face a massive population angry and armed to the teeth...and if they tried to take voting rights away then they will face the same population. Either way Americans will not lose either right.

If I would have to choose, I wouldn't. I'd fight the power and do something about it.

If anyone tried to take my gun I'd blow their brains out.

If I would have to choose, I wouldn't. I'd fight the power and do something about it.
If anyone tried to take my gun I'd blow their brains out.
Read the thread...violence isn't going to preserve your rights at the best of times.
And when things go bad, you're dead.

People underestimate partisans. The American revolution would not have been fought or won if the people didn't have guns.

This is an astoundingly good point. In revolutions it's often a small group of people who stand up and make a difference, which then gathers support. It's why so many wars have been won or lost on one personality.
I do concede that, if that group has weaponry, it could make the difference between them standing up and fighting, or not.

I wonder, though, if the group wouldn't have weaponry anyway. As has been pointed out, even without the right to bear arms, you're still physically capable of bearing arms. Guns can be stolen/smuggled/built. I assume that, at the first sign of a leader making a bad decision the people aren't going to burst in with guns, it would be a gradual decision, and as such they would be able to gather the weapons.

Case in point, there was a jewish prison camp (I can't recall the name) where the jews managed to smuggle in enough guns that, when fighting broke out, they were able to keep the army at bay for days (or perhaps weeks). These were prisoners locked up who managed to arm themselves. Surely free citizens would have equal opportunity.

The French Revolution would not have occured if the Bastile wasn't stormed and the French citizenship didn't raid its armories. If it weren't for citizens with guns, Afghanistan would've fell to the Soviet Union.
Yep. Does this mean that the 2nd American Revolution would not occur unless people storm the armories, and appropriate some tanks, missiles, and trained people to use them?

Which probably requires the support of at least military backing, as I doubt the average, or even exceptional, untrained American could use a tank. Then again, I've never used one, so I don't know, perhaps it could be learnt relatively easily.


Another thing you have to realize is that in America we out number our military by more than 200 to 1. Those numbers are astonishing. Two divisions would not hold major cities, I can guarantee you of that.


Perhaps. It's happened before (look at the occupation of cyprus) with guerilla fighting.

But of this 200 to 1, how many would actually fight?
let's say that 1 in 5 is a child, too young to fight - 160:1
1 in 2 is a woman, and only 1 in 2 women fight - 120:1
1 in 5 has a job that stops them fighting (farmer, away from cities?) - 96:1
1 in 2 won't fight, even if they could, from fear/ethics etc. - 48:1

I'm not sure about those numbers. 50 to 1 is still pretty good odds (I expected it to be lower when I started the calculations)
Even so, taking into account good leadership and organization on the miliataries part, and assuming the rebels are rag-tag unorganized people (which isn't necessarily true) I think the soldiers still have the advantage, with their better equiptment, no obligations other than their job, support structures. If the rebels are clever, and organized, of course, 50 to 1 odds are pretty overwhelming.

The vast majority of those nations past and present where guns are monopolized by the government are the most oppressive regimes in the history of the world, and the first thing tyrannts do is disarm their people.


Yeah, I've heard this. I don't have solid evidence against it, but I am jaded about the point.

Perhaps an oppressive regime has the need to disarm their citizens, sure. That does not mean that a non-oppressive regime has the need to arm their citizens. The oppressive regime would not necessarily have been stopped by farmers walking in off the streets and standing guard around the parliament with their pistols. If that was the case, couldn't the farmers have equally well stood guard using guns the national guard handed out?

I live in Australia, where guns are restricted (but not monopolized). I could buy a hand gun, but I'd have to keep it in a safe at a gun club, and wouldn't be allowed to leave the club with it. I could go in shooting competitions, and be allowed to take my rifles with me. I'm still not allowed to hang them over the fire place, I believe they have to be locked up (but I'm not sure). Rifles must be crimped.
Heck, our constitution doesn't even guarantee us the right to free speech! We have no right to free speech! On no!

But, our vote protects us. The newspapers will scream and shout if a politician tries to deny our (lack of a) right to free speech. Without some sort of a coup that won't happen. And we have our army to defend against that. And if that isn't enough, we have America's army to defend against it.


Guns can also protect citizens from criminals, and few neglect to mention that the vast minority of crimes are perpetrated with legal firearms. You are more likely to be killed by a baseball bat, or a rolling pin in this country than by a legally purchased fire arm. By some estimates over 2 million lives are saved every year by responsible legal gun owners.

Guns do one thing very well, they even the playing field. An old granny with a pistol is just as powerful as a burly 25 year old man with a pistol.
Except, they really don't. The person most likely to shoot the gun has the advantage (I, for example, really really don't want to kill someone. I'll give them the chance to back out of the room and leave if possible.) The person with better training and faster reflexes has the advantage. The granny with poor eyesight and shaking hands and slow reflexes is at a significant disadvantage, AND the 25 year old man now sees her as a threat and is more likely to shoot. Also, as you pointed out, most deaths aren't from guns. Up to...I think it was 20 feet, a knife is more deadly than a gun.

If we're talking about leaping in, killing the bad guy, and stopping the crime, the guy with the knife is in a better position (as I assume most crimes happen at relatively close range) - if someone pulls a knife on me, they will have plenty of opportunity to stab before I can draw and shoot. By this argument, shouldn't we all carry knives instead? Or better yet, batons! That way we're more able to use them in defensive but non-damaging ways. Yet we still have the option if it's necessary?

I really enjoy going to parties, knowing nobody there will be carrying a gun, knowing it's even unlikely that anyone would have a knife. I'm not planning on getting in a fight, but if it happens, I know I'll get bruised, and that's about the worst of it. I've seen how angry some people can get during a fight, I don't want them having a knife or gun on their person.
Oh, but I'm told that most parties you go to in America, people don't carry guns either. Great. But in that case, how do the guns help prevent crimes? If someone DOES pull a gun (which they could be legally carrying), and nobody else has a gun, the balance of power has shifted somewhat, don't you think? (which isn't always bad, but could be)

Criminals here don't carry guns, or at least very few do. A house burglar won't have a gun. The homeowners, if they catch the burglar, won't have a gun. The burglar, then, has the ability to run away really quickly if the owners get home. With guns in the mix, if the burglar is surprised, he might shoot at the owners so they don't shoot him first. Even if the owners don't have guns.
Or the other way around, the owners might shoot at the burglar, because they don't know if the burglar has a gun and will shoot at them. Which is why I've heard of a fair few cases in South Africa (where my parents lived, and worked as doctors) of people shooting their own children who were sneaking into the house after a late night. You just don't hear about that here.

My final point is squeamishness. My father owned a gun in South Africa, and something he said has stuck with me. If you draw a gun, you have to be willing to use it. Even if your opponent doesn't have a gun, you have to be willing to shoot them. Otherwise the gun can be taken from and used against you.
I suppose this is true for any weapon, however I'm much more willing to cut someone with a knife, or hit them with a baton than I am to shoot them. I've got much more control over the damage I do. I also know if they pull out a knife or baton I have the opportunity to try to talk them down, or back away etc. - if they pull out a gun, I'm shooting them before they have a chance to aim at me. It just ups the ante more than (often) is necessary.

I've got no issue with guns in general, they're a great tool. Farmers should have them. Police should have them (I like our police being better armed than our criminals). People that enjoy shooting as a sport should have them.

I don't see the need to use them as a political tool in a stable democracy, and I don't see the need for the average citizen to have the right to carry a gun with them without a clear, legal use.

I will be happy to support my arguments, if you anyone disagrees.

You have very clear, well thought out arguments. It's a pleasure reading them.

Oh? Oh yea, Britain is a Monarchy and Canada is under that Monarchy and pays homage to a Governor General who is appointed by the Queen of England.

Not the point. People in the States seem to think that if the citizenry isn't armed, then they will become subjugate to brutal dictatorship. I can think of at least 8 countries that proves them wrong.

I named 3.

Now ... what does having a figurehead monarch out of ancient tradition, but still having a freely elected government and liberating constitution which guarantees freedoms, have to do with brutal dictatorship?

... and Iraq would have fallen to the United States.

Oh, wait, we're not up to that chapter yet. Never mind. Carry on. I was never here.

Come back!!

I actually said that in a previous post :]

You're a product of the society you live in. Everyone is.
Which is why I think it's pointless to argue about this.
In Europe, the gun is recognised as what it is: a weapon. It is used to kill people, to hurt people. It has brought Europe more pain than anyone would ever want to see again.
In America, the gun is recognised for what is represents: Independence, and the power to defend oneself. I'm in no position to comment on that, I cannot possibly hope to understand.

Suffice to say that neither is going to understand the other side.

very concise and well put....and thanks for being somewhat openminded to the cultural differences...very well put..sucks but that is the way it is.

i enjoy my freedom...what did my dad say when i was a wee one....your rights stop in front of someones face...something like that.

i would never dream in a million years to use a gun to hurt someone...but i reserve the right to protect myself.....if that bothers the handwringers out there..sorry..i will never hurt you...but i dont need to aoutmatically think/buy into your philosphy of guns are evil...people are and will always be..i prefer a modicum of defense.

again..i have had guns for thirty plus years and never ever threantened or hurt a person because of my possession of said weapons....and go ahead take my guns....i'll make napalm outta ivory soap if i need to....you cant legislate behaviour.

the whole argument about sweden proves my point!

in the us,we have a population so much bigger then sweden,and we also have a huge population of dissaffected youths...egged on by mtv that ghetto is cool...figure that out,,,the mere prescenc of a weapon does not instill violence..or sweden would be a bloodbath....but take the u.s....compare the figures of gun crime versus legally owned weapons....it is pathetic compared to the violence of illegal gun owners...how do you pretend..lol..to stop that..taking away the legal owners or what..the crimminals thatr ignore the laws?
:headbang:

Unlike other countries, Americans have a tendency to be cocky, arrogant and hard-nosed. If the government ever tried to take guns away, then they would face a massive population angry and armed to the teeth...and if they tried to take voting rights away then they will face the same population. Either way Americans will not lose either right.

I see this as a bad thing.
What you're basically saying is "If the government tries to do something we don't like, we'll burst in with guns"
OK, It's a democracy, so the goverment really shouldn't be doing things the people don't like, but you've already got that power due to the vote.

This description of cocky, arrogant and hard-nosed people makes me think that it must be very hard to make political and social change in the country. Strong mindsets of "this is how it's done" without examining why it's done that way, or if there's not a good reason to change.

What if they tried to take away your right to own black people? Bloodbath! How many people these days think that it's a good thing that we no longer have slavery in America? How much nicer would it have been if the elected government could have just made that call without needing to fight? (OK, I know that was a stupidly simplified example)

...but take the u.s....compare the figures of gun crime versus legally owned weapons....it is pathetic compared to the violence of illegal gun owners...how do you pretend..lol..to stop that..taking away the legal owners or what..the crimminals thatr ignore the laws?
:headbang:
But where do the illegal guns come from?
Some people can build their own guns, yes - but the vast majority of people don't have the necessary knowledge.
How many of these guns are being stolen or sold out of houses that own guns legally? How many of these guns are sold by stores that should care about background checks, but don't?

If you take all guns out of society, there are very few left for criminals to use.

....but take the u.s....compare the figures of gun crime versus legally owned weapons....it is pathetic compared to the violence of illegal gun owners...how do you pretend..lol..to stop that..taking away the legal owners or what..the crimminals thatr ignore the laws?
:headbang:

You know the criminals use guns as tools? They keep them to do damage or protect themselves.
If the people they are coming to loggerheads with don't have guns, the criminals will have less need for guns.

If I really really wanted to, I could get my hands on an illegal pistol. And I'm a law abiding, honest citizen. The criminals could get their hands on guns here (In Australia), too. They don't, though. Burglars just don't carry guns, they don't need to since the homeowners don't carry guns.

*that's* why saying "most crimes happen from illegal weapons" doesn't hold water for me. I don't care where they get the weapons from, if they don't have a need to carry them, they will carry them less. If they carry them less, they will use them less.

But as Gandhi once said: Among the many misdeeds of the British rule in India, history will look upon the act of depriving a whole nation of arms, as the blackest

Gandhi was a smart man. I choose guns because if I chose voting that means that voting didn't do anything, else I would still get my guns.

Also, the second amendment does not (according to the law of the land in the US) guarantee private gun ownership. The NRA will tell you it does, but they are ignoring the Court ruling.

Um ,the only SCOTUS ruling that even gets clost to what you suggest is the Cruikshank decision, which was decided the way it was so blacks wouldn't be allowed to get too uppity in the south with firearms. Miller doesn't even approach your statement.

You know the criminals use guns as tools? They keep them to do damage or protect themselves.
If the people they are coming to loggerheads with don't have guns, the criminals will have less need for guns.

If I really really wanted to, I could get my hands on an illegal pistol. And I'm a law abiding, honest citizen. The criminals could get their hands on guns here (In Australia), too. They don't, though. Burglars just don't carry guns, they don't need to since the homeowners don't carry guns.

*that's* why saying "most crimes happen from illegal weapons" doesn't hold water for me. I don't care where they get the weapons from, if they don't have a need to carry them, they will carry them less. If they carry them less, they will use them less.

i do aprreciate your point....i guess maybe i am jaded.


my daughter was about to be gang raped when she was 12,there was 3 guys much bigger and stronger then me....had my head mashed against the wall...helpless....they made some stupid remark about how they were gonna make her a women...so i decided...i will die now to help her...so i got sly...and asked them if i they wanted a beer and could i have sloppy seconds...of cpoarse they said ok...what you got..i said..shit i got mad rock upstairs....so i had a pistol stashed....and shot the fuk in the face...then they all start running,trying to kill me....lol....but i got them...am i an asshole or should i sit with my face smashed against a wall and watch my kid be abused...if you say i shoulda sat there....never....

if you gun haters are ever in a position of weeekness....i will still help...but i will admonish you later...lol

my daughter was about to be gang raped when she was 12..
That is a lie, or you're enormously inconsistent in what you post.

I'm sure this has already been pointed out several times, but if I were in power and wanted to take away my citizens' right to vote, I would first take away their guns. If the citizenry is armed, the right to vote is safer against governmental abuse.

Olara']If the citizenry is armed, the right to vote is safer against governmental abuse.
Except the army can crush you no matter whether you have a hand gun or not.

i do aprreciate your point....i guess maybe i am jaded.


my daughter was about to be gang raped when she was 12,there was 3 guys much bigger and stronger then me....had my head mashed against the wall...helpless....they made some stupid remark about how they were gonna make her a women...so i decided...i will die now to help her...so i got sly...and asked them if i they wanted a beer and could i have sloppy seconds...of cpoarse they said ok...what you got..i said..shit i got mad rock upstairs....so i had a pistol stashed....and shot the fuk in the face...then they all start running,trying to kill me....lol....but i got them...am i an asshole or should i sit with my face smashed against a wall and watch my kid be abused...if you say i shoulda sat there....never....

if you gun haters are ever in a position of weeekness....i will still help...but i will admonish you later...lol

I'm really sorry you ever had to go through that.

I don't think your an asshole, nor do I think you should sit with your face smashed against a wall and watch a kid (or anyone) be abused. In your case it was very fortunate that you had a gun in the house. It's also fortunate that the criminals in question were extremely stupid (if I was threatening someone or their family with such violent force I wouldn't let them have the opportunity you did)

I fully accept that in certain situations it's useful, even necessary to have a gun. If I lived in a violent gun-happy culture (as my father did in South Africa) I'd probably own a firearm. And I'm not naive enough to think that the guns are the only thing (or even a major factor) in making the place violent.

I just don't think that guns are automatically, magically, necessary. I feel secure without needing a gun. I also, fortunately, have never needed to go through what you did, and (possibly) live in a safer place so I don't need to worry as much.

There is no Myrth option. You must lose one of these rights:

1] The right to bear arms.
2] The right to vote.

Pick! Which would you rather lose?

I'd say ... right to bear arms if I had to choose. My vote is my voice and most rights have been guaranteed through voice rather than by force. (Just ask MLK and Ghandi)

So ... discuss, debate, pull out some hair ... enjoy!

Poll coming.

The first thing they will attack is the right to bear arms. Once that goes, the right to vote can go at anytime.

When the populace has their guns however, trust me, the right to vote will stay or the government will be in a heap of danger from its citizens.

I'd like to see someone pull the "right to vote" crap while I'm armed. So, i'd say i'd prefer to see that go first.

The first thing they will attack is the right to bear arms. Once that goes, the right to vote can go at anytime.

Just like in England, eh?

How about neither.

The fact we have the first one; kind of makes it hard to pull either.

I chose the second option.

An unarmed society with votes means little. Obviously, they can't vote for gun ownership, so they don't have unlimited power with the vote. Votes can be undermined, ineffectual, etc. The right to vote isn't the right to democracy.

I would rather have an armed meritocracy than an unarmed democracy. With the armed meritocracy, if the unlikely SHTF occured, then the armed populace could step in to fix things.

An unarmed society with votes means little. Obviously, they can't vote for gun ownership

Why is it obvious they can't vote for gun ownership?
Is it so unbelievable that the majority in a country (America?) would want guns to not be legally available to (almost) everyone?

What if the reason you're loosing the right to bear arms is because popular majority voted to remove that right?

I fail to see the difference.
http://static.flickr.com/33/50162182_7fecf18cf4_o.jpg

I fail to see the difference.
http://static.flickr.com/33/50162182_7fecf18cf4_o.jpg

Yeah, very amusing. The worrying thing is that your comment, or ones like it, have come up a lot.

If you take up a gun, you're declaring yourself willing to kill other human beings for what you want. You're also declaring yourself a target to the other human beings who don't want you to have it.

When you vote, you're declaring your intentions for what you want (through peaceful means) and you're excercising power through the political party that is chosen needing your votes to legally take power. Assuming there isn't a coup or similar, and your government has access to the army.

As I do not want to shoot anyone, and I live in a secure democracy, I know that my vote will be politically much more powerful than any threat of force I could offer with a gun. If my government wasn't such a good democracy, then it might be different. As it is, I have absolutely no political reason to carry a gun, my only concerns would be safety reasons.

Sheesh. You made a funny point, but it's entirely not an answer to what the OP was asking. If you HAD to loose one right, which would it be? Your right to bear arms can't protect your right to vote, and vice versa.

Yeah, very amusing. The worrying thing is that your comment, or ones like it, have come up a lot.

If you take up a gun, you're declaring yourself willing to kill other human beings for what you want. You're also declaring yourself a target to the other human beings who don't want you to have it.

When you vote, you're declaring your intentions for what you want (through peaceful means) and you're excercising power through the political party that is chosen needing your votes to legally take power. Assuming there isn't a coup or similar, and your government has access to the army.

As I do not want to shoot anyone, and I live in a secure democracy, I know that my vote will be politically much more powerful than any threat of force I could offer with a gun. If my government wasn't such a good democracy, then it might be different. As it is, I have absolutely no political reason to carry a gun, my only concerns would be safety reasons.

Sheesh. You made a funny point, but it's entirely not an answer to what the OP was asking. If you HAD to loose one right, which would it be? Your right to bear arms can't protect your right to vote, and vice versa.
Bull! My rights to vote and carry a gun protect eachother just fine, and while I have both, I will never lose either. Youu seem to think the world will be just perfect for you forever. Maybe I'm a gun totin nutjob, but my worst case scenario is wasting a little money on Ammo. Yours seems much worse!

Some of you would seriously be willing to give up on democracy as long as you got to keep your gun?

What form of non-democratic government would you prefer? Feudal system? Anarchist? Communist? Plain old fashioned dictator?


Your right to bear arms can't protect your right to vote, and vice versa.



Oddly enough, both of these ideas conflict directly with our nation's very foundations. The 2nd Amendment (Right to Bear Arms) was specifically put in the Constitution so that if a government became tyrannical, oppressive, dysfunctional... the citizens would have the power to overthrow it- by violent means, if necessary. The reasoning for such a statement is blatantly obvious because of what they had recently done to create our nation, which, if you people knew your history, you'd never make arguments such as those above.

The Colonists over threw the English precisely because they would not listen to their input. In their eyes, England was tyrannical government. And since the English would not let them go peacefully, they had to fight for their freedom- with GUNS.

Guns are the people's check on the government. Once you remove guns from the people, they become the subjects instead of the rulers.

...The reasoning for such a statement is blatantly obvious because of what they had recently done to create our nation, which, if you people knew your history, you'd never make arguments such as those above...
Your argument is neither particularly original (I should start counting how often that has been brought up now... ;) ), nor particularly relevant.

These days, having a gun does not make you a threat to a soldier. Soldiers wear kevlar vests, drive tanks, and fly gunship helicopters - all the while firing cruise missiles at you from a thousand kilometres away.

So either you say that soldiers wouldn't want to fight you - in which case you wouldn't need a gun, a knife could overthrow a government just as well.
Or you'd have to think that the army (or parts of it) would oppress the population, in which case you can create chaos and do a bit of partisan warfare (eg Iraq), but you couldn't actually win the war and restore your government. Any such planned exercise would be doomed to failure, as the military could crush it without much trouble.

Finally, I think you would do well to look at a few other nations, with much stricter gun laws yet an even healthier democracy than in the US - where 49% of the voters end up unhappy, many don't vote at all, and those that do often only agree with a few of "their" party's policies.

I guess it is no use for non-Americans to even start debating on this issue, because we just cannot fathom the apparently deep rooted obsession of most Americans with the right to bear arms. Especially puzzling for me is the connection between the right to bear arms and the right to vote. Look at the eastern European countries, they gained the right to vote despite not having had the right to bear arms.

I also think it is a mute point to compare statistics about crime levels and gun ownership. Do Americans need guns for self defense because they live in such a violent society or is the society so violent, because of the easy access to weapons. My feeling leans towards the latter, but I don't think it can be conclusively proven one way or another, as you'd need a state that compares to the US in every aspect, apart from gun ownership and there just isn't such a state.

So where does that leave us? I seriously don't know.

However, I'm very happy to live in a country with fairly strict gun laws and sleep well in the knowledge that neither my neighbours nor I have guns at home and that the risk to be the victim of a gun related crime is very very small, because most ordinary criminals don't carry guns either.

Does the right to bear arms result in the right to vote? Why don't we ask all the rebel groups in Africa and Latin America. ;)

Can I make the obligitary unfunny comment about the right to arm bears?

Oh? Oh yea, Britain is a Monarchy and Canada is under that Monarchy and pays homage to a Governor General who is appointed by the Queen of England.

The Queen and the Governor General are both ceremonial figurehead positions these days. All the actually governing is done by elected prime ministers and elected Members of Parliament. On the other hand, we both have unelected Senates/House of Lords.

At any rate, they are both democracies in the same way the US is a democracy.