There, of course is one thing wrong with the "I need to keep my gun to defend myself against the government" argument... Um, I'm not sure if you fellas have thought this through and all, but not even the meanest group of militia men running around in the northern forests of Michigan (for those of you who do not know, the Michigan militia are probably one of the most notable in size and strength of all the fringe guns rights, ultraconservative, conspiracy theory type groups out there) stand a snowballs chance in hell of standing up to the force and power possessed by the United States military... Keep your guns, I don't really care, they wouldn't make a difference anyway.
I agree with the post above me. Bring all the automatic weapons you want against tanks and laser guided bombs but you will still lose in the long run. You would be the same as the 'insurgents' in Afganistan, except you will be fighting on American soil. The government would put as much men and equipment that is needed to crush you. They don't in Afganistan because even if the insurgents eventually win the US government is still in charge of the US. If they lose against american citizens the entire system will change and those in power now will not have a say in the changes.
See, people say this, but all I can say is Iraq and Afghanistan Trust me governments don't fight wars to lose, there's not even an organized resistance, but the world's most advanced military can't deal with it
Guns ultimately aren't going to save you. However, banning guns will make the government's job easier when it comes to taking over the cities, towns and villages. It's just important for people to realize that the ultimate objective behind gun control has nothing to do with protecting children and innocent people from guns (because guns don't kill people -- people kill people). God knows the tens of millions of people that have been killed by tyranical governments over time. Sure they fight wars to lose them. If you want to take over a country and set up permanent military bases, you allow yourself to lose to justify such a buildup. If the US was to go in and successfully take out Saddam and his military in 2003, and then pack up and leave, we wouldn't have the massive and permanent military bases we see there today (in the name of fighting the war, of course).
They already own and run the cities, towns and villages.. those democratically elected municipalities are already in place... You speak of the United States government as this imperial power that is constantly expanding, and they're on their way to get you... but what you choose not to admit to yourself is that they already have you...
I would put a legal limit on how much money one person is allowed to have, and that includes private and company assets. Then I would raise minimum wage until it's actually possible to survive and support a family on it. I just don't think it's fair that someone out there can spend more in a day than some people make in five years.
One of the things I would do would be legalizing drugs. The war on drugs isn't really a war on drugs, but a war against capitalism. When supply of anything is limited, and there is a huge demand people will pay lots of money. It doesn't matter if it's weed, coke, food, alcohol, or medicine, it's restricting free access to these things that causes so much violence. In a land of abundance there would be no need to take from others, hence no malicious people changing your dollars into guns. Let all the hippies grow pot, lot the heroin addicts OD, and let the drug-free people live in perfect contentment. Then and only then will there be peace and the realization of the American Dream.
The government definately doesn't have you, albeit they do have way much more control over our lives than is possibly just. One thing you guys gotta remember though is that although they do have all advanced military technology that can squash any civilian population like gasoline on an ant hill, you gotta think. Americans killing Americans? Unless you're talking about some type of UN or other combinant enforcement agent. No American is going to shoot another American civillian just because the big man said so. Unless there's a lot of disinformation, or civil unrest coupled with foreign military pressure Now if these gun toatin' civillians were acting more like terrorists then sure, the government would have no problem squashing them, but thats a dif story. Sure gun for gun civillians stand no chance against military, but that doesn't mean you shouldnt keep as much power as you can. Joe Shmo military recruit wants to rape one of your family members or steal resources, and you're telling me you made yourself powerless to stop it? A .45 magnum won't win a war, but it'll sure send a message.
Thing is, the US government is not going to turn itself against its people in the foreseeable future whatsoever. If it's futile to have guns to defend yourself from the government, why bother to have them and claim it as an inalienable right? It's delusion. It's not a right, it's a privilege.
It's delusion. It's not a right, it's a privilege. __________________ excuse me? a privilage? and who may i ask gave us this privilege?
No, you're absolutely 100% wrong once again. It's a right guaranteed by the US Constitution. I don't know where you're getting the idea it's a privilege from, but you're wrong. Also... I have actually done the research, and it's evident that they're preparing for something big (they have been for years, but much more so recently). Of course the Army Times published an article a few months back about the 3rd Infantry Division's 1st Brigade Combat Team being deployed in the US under NORTHCOM. Even Amy Goodman stated the possibility of the US military being used against civilians after talking to Air Force Lt. Col. Jamie Goodpaster, a public affairs officer for NORTHCOM, who stated that military forces would have weapons on-site in the event of civil unrest. Writing in the Seattle Post-Intelligencer, Goodman states: We know the British government is preparing for mass civil unrest because of the economic crisis in Britain, so what makes you think they're not preparing for martial law here, when all the information is clearly pointing in that direction? HR 1585, which is the 2008 Defense Authorization Bill, gives authorization to the US military to plan a future merger with the police that will be used during a catastrophic emergency. This bill authorizes the Department of Defense to design a plan for a martial law apparatus. According to Washington-based investigative journalist, author, columnist and former US naval officer, Wayne Madsen, preparation for martial law resulting from the financial crisis was further moved ahead under Bush during his final year in office. Then of course we also have the John Warner Defense Authorization Act [H.R. 5122] of 2007, the Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism Prevention Act [H.R. 1955] of 2007, and the Military Commissions Act [H.R. 6166] of 2006, all of which set the precedent for martial law and for US citizens to be deemed "enemy combatants" just for expressing views unfavorable to the government.
It's a right in your Constitution that was made hundreds of years ago. But in my opinion, it's not an inalienable right. So no, I am not wrong. I say owning a gun is a privilege, and not a right. If it was a right, then psychopaths, mentally disabled and children should be given the equal right to bear arms, to arm up with whatever weapons they so choose. But again, you seem to think this is some kind of God given right that everyone has. I happen to disagree and think it's backwards.
I'd say rich white Christian men gave you the privilege as a right when they wrote the Constitution a couple hundred years ago.
But then nothing is right, speech, voting, guns, cars the need for warrants, anything can be taken away on a person to person basis.
I'd be rather more concerned with the notion of everyone having guns than, say, the crackhead idea of government turning into a fascist state. Especially when considering that those owning or condoning the ownership of guns out of fear of a facist government are paranoid as all hell and hence much more unstable than the average cop/infantryman/whathaveyou Everyone has the undeniable right to whatever pleases them, regardless of law, morality and other people. Then civility comes into the picture. To actually answer the question of the thread: I'd change the authority with which government challenges the populace, or rather, I'd prefer the government (of all countries) to know its place as the bitch of the people, as opposed to the ruler of the people. I want a government that treats its people graciously, in a thankful manner for having been allowed to continue to exist because of them and their support. I want to fucking get thank you notes in the mail every year after paying taxes, a birthday card, and chocolates for valentine's day. I want cops that pull me over to say "I'm sorry for interrupting you sir, but you're going a little too fast, could you please slow down so you don't kill other people?" and let me on my way. I want minimal laws which exist solely for the purpose of protecting others, and I want every fucking greasy CEO that acts for their own benefit rather than for that of the people hung drawn and quartered on the corner of Wall street, using the thumbs up/down system from youtube as a voting method for the jury of all. Pressed_Rat, if you believe the U.S. is so incredibly fucked, why don't you take the protective measure of moving?