Pages: 1 2 3

 

2007-03-05 09:52:39
weamo8
Member
+50|6440|USA
There has been a lot of debate about gun control in the forums.  Regardless of your personal feelings on the matter, I have a question for those who live in countries that do not have the “right to bear arms.”

Things in the United States are certainly not perfect, and few people are happy with our politicians in general, or the direction the country is headed in many ways.  My confidence in our government is a little shaken.  However, I am completely confident that if the U.S. Government gets to the point of true disregard for the welfare of the people, we will take back control.  We have the means to do this.  Through the “right to bear arms,” our government does have a reason to fear the people.  I believe this is what makes us citizens.

For those of you who live in countries where citizens can not own arms, my question is simply – What would you do?  If the British government started rounding up all of the Muslims in the country, what would you do?  Do you have any way to defend yourselves if you government started to slide out of control?  Your government is armed, but you are not.  Does your government have any reason to fear you?  Are you citizens, or merely subjects?

It is likely that this is nothing we will have to worry about in our lifetimes, but I think it is still a relevant question.
2007-03-05 09:58:19
Kmar
Truth is my Bitch
+5,695|6598|132 and Bush

weamo8 wrote:

For those of you who live in countries where citizens can not own arms, my question is simply – What would you do?  If the British government started rounding up all of the Muslims in the country, what would you do?
Bush's fault.
Xbone Stormsurgezz
2007-03-05 10:00:28
snuten_i_sjoholmen
Member
+9|6471|Svea Rike
I have confidence in my government, my country has been in peace for over 200 years so I think we are more civilized than that. What would I need guns for???

What do you mean about the British government rounding up muslims? What does that mean?
2007-03-05 10:05:58
weamo8
Member
+50|6440|USA

snuten_i_sjoholmen wrote:

I have confidence in my government, my country has been in peace for over 200 years so I think we are more civilized than that. What would I need guns for???

What do you mean about the British government rounding up muslims? What does that mean?
Simply an example.  I am just wondering what you would do if you government got out of control.  It is possible.

That is great you have such confidence in your government.  Maybe the answer for you is that you are simply a subject, and not a citizen, but you are okay with that.

Does you government have any reason to treat you well?

Last edited by weamo8 (2007-03-05 10:06:52)

2007-03-05 10:11:07
apollo_fi
The Flying Kalakukko.
+94|6527|The lunar module

weamo8 wrote:

My confidence in our government is a little shaken.  However, I am completely confident that if the U.S. Government gets to the point of true disregard for the welfare of the people, we will take back control.  We have the means to do this.  Through the “right to bear arms,” our government does have a reason to fear the people.  I believe this is what makes us citizens.
Well... er... good for you. We do have something similar in place, though. We have this thing called the 'right to vote'.

For those of you who live in countries where citizens can not own arms, my question is simply – What would you do?  If the British government started rounding up all of the Muslims in the country, what would you do?  Do you have any way to defend yourselves if you government started to slide out of control?  Your government is armed, but you are not.  Does your government have any reason to fear you?  Are you citizens, or merely subjects?
I believe we have no representatives here in the forums from a country where citizens cannot own arms.
2007-03-05 10:19:33
Kmar
Truth is my Bitch
+5,695|6598|132 and Bush

apollo_fi wrote:

weamo8 wrote:

My confidence in our government is a little shaken.  However, I am completely confident that if the U.S. Government gets to the point of true disregard for the welfare of the people, we will take back control.  We have the means to do this.  Through the “right to bear arms,” our government does have a reason to fear the people.  I believe this is what makes us citizens.
Well... er... good for you. We do have something similar in place, though. We have this thing called the 'right to vote'.
Hitler was elected. (his party)

Last edited by Kmarion (2007-03-05 10:21:51)

Xbone Stormsurgezz
2007-03-05 10:28:03
confused
Member
+10|6391|British Columbia
The way the US is set up for the government to suspend the constitution would require military support.  I don't think the armed citizens with no military training and no idea of cooperation could succeed in overthrowing the government because they could never withstand the military.

Some countries that don't have the same gun freedoms as the US have compulsory military service.  It would be harder for a government in one of these countries to exceed their mandate because the citizenry are more competent.
2007-03-05 10:28:57
weamo8
Member
+50|6440|USA

apollo_fi wrote:

weamo8 wrote:

My confidence in our government is a little shaken.  However, I am completely confident that if the U.S. Government gets to the point of true disregard for the welfare of the people, we will take back control.  We have the means to do this.  Through the “right to bear arms,” our government does have a reason to fear the people.  I believe this is what makes us citizens.
Well... er... good for you. We do have something similar in place, though. We have this thing called the 'right to vote'.

For those of you who live in countries where citizens can not own arms, my question is simply – What would you do?  If the British government started rounding up all of the Muslims in the country, what would you do?  Do you have any way to defend yourselves if you government started to slide out of control?  Your government is armed, but you are not.  Does your government have any reason to fear you?  Are you citizens, or merely subjects?
I believe we have no representatives here in the forums from a country where citizens cannot own arms.
We have several representatives from countries that restrict arms to the point that almost no one has them. e.g. Britain, Australia per the forum title.
2007-03-05 10:31:10
IG-Calibre
comhalta
+226|6739|Tír Eoghan, Tuaisceart Éireann
Where there is rebellion there are weapons - Britian isn't armed to the teeth just incase they need to overthrow the monarchy..
2007-03-05 10:32:03
weamo8
Member
+50|6440|USA

confused wrote:

The way the US is set up for the government to suspend the constitution would require military support.  I don't think the armed citizens with no military training and no idea of cooperation could succeed in overthrowing the government because they could never withstand the military.

Some countries that don't have the same gun freedoms as the US have compulsory military service.  It would be harder for a government in one of these countries to exceed their mandate because the citizenry are more competent.
What you are saying is half true.  Not bad for someone who is truly confused.

Why will no one answer my question?
2007-03-05 10:32:55
CameronPoe
Member
+2,925|6552
In our case the IRA would crawl out of the woodwork, get on the phone to Colonel Gadaffi, FARC, ETA and Fatah asap, haul in some weaponry and use their expertise to give our errant government a world of shit.

We have a long history of insurgency here in Ireland.

Last edited by CameronPoe (2007-03-05 10:33:30)

2007-03-05 10:35:45
IG-Calibre
comhalta
+226|6739|Tír Eoghan, Tuaisceart Éireann

CameronPoe wrote:

In our case the IRA would crawl out of the woodwork, get on the phone to Colonel Gadaffi, FARC, ETA and Fatah asap, haul in some weaponry and use their expertise to give our errant government a world of shit.

We have a long history of insurgency here in Ireland.
and get the Americans to majorly fund the whole shebang
2007-03-05 10:55:05
DrunkFace
Germans did 911
+427|6678|Disaster Free Zone

weamo8 wrote:

Do you have any way to defend yourselves if you government started to slide out of control?  Your government is armed, but you are not.  Does your government have any reason to fear you?  Are you citizens, or merely subjects?
Trust and faith in human (Australian) morals and nature. I seriously don't see the need for the government to fear the people. What kind of society do you people live in if everything is based around fear. It's sick. If the only way you can have a government which works for the people is by them fearing the citizens violent reprisals, then there's something seriously wrong with your culture. Then you use the same ideology's with your global policies, no wonder everyone hates the US.

In Australia its illegal not to vote (yes your fined if you do not vote) and the voting system is regulated by independent government organisations, making the voted in party accurate to the current population. This makes it increasingly vital for the current government to please the people into voting them in for a second, third, fourth and fifth terms as is for current PM in the coming elections.

Sure the Government 'might' try and seize control of the country... what am I saying, the idea is just ludicrous and I can't grasp why it seems such a big deal to Americans.

weamo8 wrote:

That is great you have such confidence in your government.  Maybe the answer for you is that you are simply a subject, and not a citizen, but you are okay with that.

Does you government have any reason to treat you well?
The government is a subject of the citizens. It is there to work on behalf of the people. I realise theres an agent problem, as many government members are self providing first, but as a whole, the government serves the people, and the people fund the government through taxes. If the citizens are unhappy they vote a new government to run the country (not them).

Does your government have any reason to treat you badly?

Last edited by DrunkFace (2007-03-05 11:04:41)

2007-03-05 11:05:25
Bertster7
Confused Pothead
+1,101|6578|SE London

IG-Calibre wrote:

CameronPoe wrote:

In our case the IRA would crawl out of the woodwork, get on the phone to Colonel Gadaffi, FARC, ETA and Fatah asap, haul in some weaponry and use their expertise to give our errant government a world of shit.

We have a long history of insurgency here in Ireland.
and get the Americans to majorly fund the whole shebang
They are fond of funding terrorism aren't they.

In any case, the whole "we need weapons in case the government gets out of control" argument is silly and unless something really radical happens (like the situation in Children of Men), then I have complete confidence in the government not to totally go against the wishes of the people and if there were, for example, a long term cessation of the right to vote, I am confident the military would do their job and sort it out - there are a lot of quite politically minded generals out there.

What do you expect armed civilians would do if the military was against them? They could do little more than act as an expensive inconvenience, like the insurgents in Iraq.
2007-03-05 11:58:35
weamo8
Member
+50|6440|USA
A government gone bad?!?  Surly such a thought is ridiculous.  We are so far past that now-a-days.  We are such a loving advanced civilization now that we dont have to worry about that.  Of course.

Those who know absolutely nothing about history are doomed to repeat it.

Luckily for Bertster and Drunkface, they probably wont have to worry about bad governments in their lifetimes, but that doesnt discount my question.

There is a reason Hitler restiricted the Jew's gun rights, and Stalin with the Ukrainians, Cambodia, Africa, etc. etc. etc.  It goes all the way back to the Scotish fighting with clubs and pitchforks instead of swords and shields.

Read a book before you comment on your everlastingly perfect governments.  The timeline from French prosperity to Revolution was pretty short.
2007-03-05 12:07:14
apollo_fi
The Flying Kalakukko.
+94|6527|The lunar module

Kmarion wrote:

apollo_fi wrote:

weamo8 wrote:

My confidence in our government is a little shaken.  However, I am completely confident that if the U.S. Government gets to the point of true disregard for the welfare of the people, we will take back control.  We have the means to do this.  Through the “right to bear arms,” our government does have a reason to fear the people.  I believe this is what makes us citizens.
Well... er... good for you. We do have something similar in place, though. We have this thing called the 'right to vote'.
Hitler was elected. (his party)
Hitler used 'a well regulated militia' (the SA) to wipe out the opposition after he was elected, at a point when he did not have the full support of the German armed forces.

One should not take it for granted that 'the right to bear arms' will be used to overthrow a corrupt government.  It can also be used to support one.

Last edited by apollo_fi (2007-03-05 12:54:00)

2007-03-05 12:25:54
Bertster7
Confused Pothead
+1,101|6578|SE London

weamo8 wrote:

A government gone bad?!?  Surly such a thought is ridiculous.  We are so far past that now-a-days.  We are such a loving advanced civilization now that we dont have to worry about that.  Of course.

Those who know absolutely nothing about history are doomed to repeat it.

Luckily for Bertster and Drunkface, they probably wont have to worry about bad governments in their lifetimes, but that doesnt discount my question.

There is a reason Hitler restiricted the Jew's gun rights, and Stalin with the Ukrainians, Cambodia, Africa, etc. etc. etc.  It goes all the way back to the Scotish fighting with clubs and pitchforks instead of swords and shields.

Read a book before you comment on your everlastingly perfect governments.  The timeline from French prosperity to Revolution was pretty short.
Read a book? I was just reading one - called Persian Fire by Tom Holland, it's quite an interesting account of the history of Persian emperors, like Darius and Xerxes.

We've had a revolution in England. We didn't like it much, so we just changed everything back.

Any examples of revolution against absolute rulers are invalid in this argument really, since in a working democratic system the people have the power to remove those in office, not the case with an absolute monarch like Louis XVI (even than there were divisions in the military which helped greatly with the revolutions success).

I do not envisage the collapse of the government as impossible, but it would require at least a suspension of democratic rights. If that persisted for any length of time, civil unrest would cause the military to restore order - which would probably work. My only concern is that under those circumstances a popular military leader could establish himself as a supreme ruler, much like Caesar did. Modern 1st world armed forces, particularly in stronger military nations like the US and the UK would be too much for civilian revolt to do anything about.

What if there was a complete despot in power? Lets say a civil uprising does happen. It would be brutally crushed by the military with ease. Guerilla tactics may have some limited success, but if a leader cares nothing about the nations populace all kinds of other options open up for them. How would civilian rebels do against tactical nukes, cruise missiles, military aircraft and other weapons that civilians just can't fight back against?

The whole scenario is quite frankly ludicrous.

Last edited by Bertster7 (2007-03-05 12:27:22)

2007-03-05 12:52:08
UGADawgs
Member
+13|6318|South Carolina, US

Bertster7 wrote:

weamo8 wrote:

A government gone bad?!?  Surly such a thought is ridiculous.  We are so far past that now-a-days.  We are such a loving advanced civilization now that we dont have to worry about that.  Of course.

Those who know absolutely nothing about history are doomed to repeat it.

Luckily for Bertster and Drunkface, they probably wont have to worry about bad governments in their lifetimes, but that doesnt discount my question.

There is a reason Hitler restiricted the Jew's gun rights, and Stalin with the Ukrainians, Cambodia, Africa, etc. etc. etc.  It goes all the way back to the Scotish fighting with clubs and pitchforks instead of swords and shields.

Read a book before you comment on your everlastingly perfect governments.  The timeline from French prosperity to Revolution was pretty short.
Read a book? I was just reading one - called Persian Fire by Tom Holland, it's quite an interesting account of the history of Persian emperors, like Darius and Xerxes.

We've had a revolution in England. We didn't like it much, so we just changed everything back.

Any examples of revolution against absolute rulers are invalid in this argument really, since in a working democratic system the people have the power to remove those in office, not the case with an absolute monarch like Louis XVI (even than there were divisions in the military which helped greatly with the revolutions success).

I do not envisage the collapse of the government as impossible, but it would require at least a suspension of democratic rights. If that persisted for any length of time, civil unrest would cause the military to restore order - which would probably work. My only concern is that under those circumstances a popular military leader could establish himself as a supreme ruler, much like Caesar did. Modern 1st world armed forces, particularly in stronger military nations like the US and the UK would be too much for civilian revolt to do anything about.

What if there was a complete despot in power? Lets say a civil uprising does happen. It would be brutally crushed by the military with ease. Guerilla tactics may have some limited success, but if a leader cares nothing about the nations populace all kinds of other options open up for them. How would civilian rebels do against tactical nukes, cruise missiles, military aircraft and other weapons that civilians just can't fight back against?

The whole scenario is quite frankly ludicrous.
I hope that leader likes ruling over radioactive waste, then. Sure, he can nuke away the country (or less dramatically, carpet bomb it), but he won't have anyone to rule over when the fighting's over. Besides, the US is one huge place. I don't know if civilian resistance itself would be able to overthrow a despot but it would at least buy enough time for other nations to intervene.
2007-03-05 13:15:22
weamo8
Member
+50|6440|USA

Bertster7 wrote:

weamo8 wrote:

A government gone bad?!?  Surly such a thought is ridiculous.  We are so far past that now-a-days.  We are such a loving advanced civilization now that we don't have to worry about that.  Of course.

Those who know absolutely nothing about history are doomed to repeat it.

Luckily for Bertster and Drunkface, they probably wont have to worry about bad governments in their lifetimes, but that doesnt discount my question.

There is a reason Hitler restiricted the Jew's gun rights, and Stalin with the Ukrainians, Cambodia, Africa, etc. etc. etc.  It goes all the way back to the Scotish fighting with clubs and pitchforks instead of swords and shields.

Read a book before you comment on your everlastingly perfect governments.  The timeline from French prosperity to Revolution was pretty short.
Read a book? I was just reading one - called Persian Fire by Tom Holland, it's quite an interesting account of the history of Persian emperors, like Darius and Xerxes.

We've had a revolution in England. We didn't like it much, so we just changed everything back.

Any examples of revolution against absolute rulers are invalid in this argument really, since in a working democratic system the people have the power to remove those in office, not the case with an absolute monarch like Louis XVI (even than there were divisions in the military which helped greatly with the revolutions success).

I do not envisage the collapse of the government as impossible, but it would require at least a suspension of democratic rights. If that persisted for any length of time, civil unrest would cause the military to restore order - which would probably work. My only concern is that under those circumstances a popular military leader could establish himself as a supreme ruler, much like Caesar did. Modern 1st world armed forces, particularly in stronger military nations like the US and the UK would be too much for civilian revolt to do anything about.

What if there was a complete despot in power? Lets say a civil uprising does happen. It would be brutally crushed by the military with ease. Guerilla tactics may have some limited success, but if a leader cares nothing about the nations populace all kinds of other options open up for them. How would civilian rebels do against tactical nukes, cruise missiles, military aircraft and other weapons that civilians just can't fight back against?

The whole scenario is quite frankly ludicrous.
That is because you can not grasp concepts like Civil Wars and split military reactions to Dispicable rulers.  The United States is in Iraq because the Senate gave our President more power than they should have.  They now claim that they didnt realize what would happen.

Governments are subject to fear also.  In a state of fear, governments will do irrational things that can lead to certain people trying to usurp as much power as possible.

The fact that all of you think that your governments could never corrupt to the point that the peoples freedoms could be in jeopardy are naive.  Have you ever heard of the "Patriot Act."  It is a little freedom surpresser we have here in the U.S.   The U.S. is a democracy you know.

Those who know absolutly nothing about history are doomed to repeat it.

Read a different book Bertster.
2007-03-05 13:41:14
Bertster7
Confused Pothead
+1,101|6578|SE London

You deluded paranoid types do make me laugh. You really don't seem to know what you're talking about.

Civilian resisitance would be futile. It would be impossible for armed civilians to rise up and ovethrow the government. It is more likely, in a country like the UK, that unarmed civilians could overthrow the government. Peaceful protest would work far better.

weamo8 wrote:

Those who know absolutly nothing about history are doomed to repeat it.

Read a different book Bertster.
That especially made me laugh.

I mention I'm reading a book about history and you make a statement like that. An interesting response.

Your entire argument on this subject also suggests you either don't know much, or don't understand about "history".
2007-03-05 13:59:41
samfink
Member
+31|6552
armed rebellions historically have usually been crushed. unarmed rebellions, however, have usually succeeded, even whne firepower is brought to bear on the rebellion. and remember, soldiers have conscience. firing on unarmed civillians who are protesting against their government, with no associated carbombings/suicide bombings/etc would quite possibly cause the military to decide to join the ranks of the protestors, and then a despotic ruler is really f**ked. as then, his miltary, which he/she has built up to the point where they can easily kill anyoen, is trying to kill them. do you know how many despots have been overthrown by their own forces turning against them?
2007-03-05 14:06:41
Bertster7
Confused Pothead
+1,101|6578|SE London

samfink wrote:

armed rebellions historically have usually been crushed. unarmed rebellions, however, have usually succeeded, even whne firepower is brought to bear on the rebellion. and remember, soldiers have conscience. firing on unarmed civillians who are protesting against their government, with no associated carbombings/suicide bombings/etc would quite possibly cause the military to decide to join the ranks of the protestors, and then a despotic ruler is really f**ked. as then, his miltary, which he/she has built up to the point where they can easily kill anyoen, is trying to kill them. do you know how many despots have been overthrown by their own forces turning against them?
Exactly!
2007-03-05 14:12:43
CameronPoe
Member
+2,925|6552

samfink wrote:

armed rebellions historically have usually been crushed. unarmed rebellions, however, have usually succeeded, even whne firepower is brought to bear on the rebellion. and remember, soldiers have conscience. firing on unarmed civillians who are protesting against their government, with no associated carbombings/suicide bombings/etc would quite possibly cause the military to decide to join the ranks of the protestors, and then a despotic ruler is really f**ked. as then, his miltary, which he/she has built up to the point where they can easily kill anyoen, is trying to kill them. do you know how many despots have been overthrown by their own forces turning against them?
Yeah - during the CIA-backed coup against Hugo Chavez in Venezuela the people demonstrated largely peacefully in great numbers outside the presidential palace and other important governmental buildings and the army were forced in the end to swap sides back to Chavez. People power in action.

On the other hand though: armed rebellion worked in Ireland, France, America, Cuba, etc. Don't discount it.

Last edited by CameronPoe (2007-03-05 14:13:13)

2007-03-05 14:16:11
weamo8
Member
+50|6440|USA

Bertster7 wrote:

You deluded paranoid types do make me laugh. You really don't seem to know what you're talking about.

Civilian resisitance would be futile. It would be impossible for armed civilians to rise up and ovethrow the government. It is more likely, in a country like the UK, that unarmed civilians could overthrow the government. Peaceful protest would work far better.

weamo8 wrote:

Those who know absolutly nothing about history are doomed to repeat it.

Read a different book Bertster.
That especially made me laugh.

I mention I'm reading a book about history and you make a statement like that. An interesting response.

Your entire argument on this subject also suggests you either don't know much, or don't understand about "history".
That is quite a come-back.  Dont refute any arguments, or point out flawed logic.  Just assume that your opinion is right, and that I am an idiot.  That is such a strong argument. 

I will take recorded "history" over your "confused pothead" opinions any day.

btw, read what I wrote before you act like I am paranoid.  I have stated several times that such an occurance will probably not happen in our life times, but I think it is a little naive to assume that they will never happen again.
2007-03-05 14:33:01
Bertster7
Confused Pothead
+1,101|6578|SE London

CameronPoe wrote:

samfink wrote:

armed rebellions historically have usually been crushed. unarmed rebellions, however, have usually succeeded, even whne firepower is brought to bear on the rebellion. and remember, soldiers have conscience. firing on unarmed civillians who are protesting against their government, with no associated carbombings/suicide bombings/etc would quite possibly cause the military to decide to join the ranks of the protestors, and then a despotic ruler is really f**ked. as then, his miltary, which he/she has built up to the point where they can easily kill anyoen, is trying to kill them. do you know how many despots have been overthrown by their own forces turning against them?
Yeah - during the CIA-backed coup against Hugo Chavez in Venezuela the people demonstrated largely peacefully in great numbers outside the presidential palace and other important governmental buildings and the army were forced in the end to swap sides back to Chavez. People power in action.

On the other hand though: armed rebellion worked in Ireland, France, America, Cuba, etc. Don't discount it.
None of those examples are recent though. A civil population opposing a well equiped modern military just could not happen. Can you honestly see any way for armed revolution working in the UK or Australia? The advances in military technology are such that civilians could never oppose them.

Another example of people power in action is the Orange Revolution in the Ukraine. Peaceful revolution, now that could well work.

 

Pages: 1 2 3

Board footer

Privacy Policy - © 2024 Jeff Minard