Summations Only

How does a population stop this from this happening without individual possession of guns?Edited by Voltaire30, : No reason given.

Really? So you'd expect to be able to defend yourself after an attempt to overthrow the federal government by citing your rights under the ninth amendment?

That depends on whether or not the Revolution succeeded.

Yes, see the below maps and you tell me what these statisitics tell you.-The United States has the highest gun ownership rate in the world an average of 88 per 100 people. That puts it first in the world for gun ownership and even the number two country, Yemen, has significantly fewer — 54.8 per 100 people The US is at the top of the rank of number of homicides per 100,000 people in developed (first-world) countries, as high as 5.52 cases, or almost doubled the second follower Finland and and the 21st of all the 196 countries of the world just slightly lower than Mexico and the Philippines . Edited by DevilsAdvocate, : No reason given.Edited by DevilsAdvocate, : No reason given.

Of course, you can't claim causation from this. Perhaps without the highest rate of gun ownership, the US would have a far higher homicide rate. It's completely fucked up, either way...

I'm not persuaded that the possession of guns would stop this happening. In order for a police state to succeed one usually needs to have gained the support of the military and the police. When you have that level of support, you probably have lots of power and influence in other areas with plenty of support (implicit or explicit) coming from the people.I guess its possible that an armed populace may be able to sufficiently and quickly react to a growing police state, but I don't see that as being necessarily true.

Unless of course, someone were to make the claim that gun restrictions don't prevent gun crime as criminals will still have guns - or similar claims. Then its quite pertinent to gun control discussion.

There is no way for the people of China to overthrow their government now because they are unarmed. I realize that the police and the military are more armed than the populace could ever be, but at least it is possible to start guerilla war with the state if the populace is armed. Being armed would make it possible to kill the shipment inspectors at the borders and the maritime shipping docks and get military style weapons in from other sympathetic countries. Without an armed populace, this is not possible.

You contradict yourself. The current regime in China came to power by guerrilla warfare. It is always possible to become armed, should the need arise.As an aside, are you under the impression that the people of China want to overthrow their government?

DA throws out these 2 plots: DA - could you label the plots next time? I had to go into peek mode to find out that the one above was labeled suicide by gun rate and the one below was your rate of gun homicide you were trying to portray???Just a suggestion. I mean, WTF?

If there is a market for guerilla warfare, there will almost certainly be willing weapons salesman. But I don't think the people of China want to overthrow their government. That's hardly the only way to acquire weapons. One could simply bribe, persuade or otherwise coerce the inspectors, or use methods that circumvent legitimate import channels entirely - such as smuggling or secret air drops. Killing basically innocent government employees should be last resort, not the first option.

Hi Voltaire30, and welcome to the fray Curiously unarmed non-violent protest "overthew" the British colonial government of India and resulted in democratic self-rule by the Indian population: perhaps you should read about some history, including Ghandi.South Africa has recently changed government through unarmed non-violent protest and now has democratic populist government.Egypt has recently changed government through unarmed non-violent protest and now is working to build a democratic populist government.The emancipation of women voters in the US was accomplished through unarmed non-violent protest.The civil rights movement in the US accomplished it's goals through unarmed non-violent protest.Currently we have unarmed non-violent protest in the form of the Occupy Wallstreet movement and it's branches around the world to change the way banking and big money investing is done to a manner that is more fair and just.Using guns just allows governments to justify using guns in return.Armed insurrections often result in replacing one despotic government with another.It is possible to live without guns.Unarmed non-violent protest creates change by evolution of government rather than by revolution. Enjoy Edited by RAZD, : ...Edited by RAZD, : evolution

Hi crashfrog, Correct. What you can construe from this and from articles in the constitution ...:

quote:

---

Article I - The Legislative Branch
Section 8 - Powers of Congress

​

To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;

​

To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

​

Article II - The Executive Branch
Section 2 - Civilian Power over Military, Cabinet, Pardon Power, Appointments

​

The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States; ...

​

Amendment 2 - Right to Bear Arms. Ratified 12/15/1791.

​

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

---

... what you CAN construe is that the National Guards of the various states are the modern militias in question, organized and trained by state, armed, organized and disciplined by congress ... and the place where civilians can enroll to get proper training and then keep and bear arms.The second amendment is curiously silent on whether or not these arms can be taken home, presumably leaving that up to the states that are running the National Guards ( militias), and it is also silent on regulation of general gun ownership, again, presumably leaving that up to the states, a position that is upheld in the supreme court.Currently it seems that our militias are busy fighting foreign wars instead of the regular army, navy and air force, due to a Bush slight of hand hid the pea executive order.Somehow I doubt that a citizen turning up with an automatic hunting rifle would be welcomed in Iraq, nor would I expect the State Department would be happy if he became an incident of one kind or another.EnjoyEdited by RAZD, : underline for emphasisEdited by RAZD, : clean

Don't arguments about overthrowing the government cut both ways? I mean, if it is possible for a bunch of private citizens with guns to overthrow a tyranny and replace it with a democratic republic, then wouldn't it also be possible for an armed citizenry to overthrow a democratic republic and replace it with a tyranny? There is, after all, nothing particularly bullet-proof about democrats.So, yes, it might be a good idea if the Chinese had more guns, but what about the USA? If our citizens have enough weaponry to overthrow the government (which I doubt, but for the sake of argument let's say they do) then since we are currently a democratic republic, what they would be doing would be overthrowing democracy in favor of tyranny. Since we currently have liberty, guns can not currently be used to give us liberty, but to take it away; if it is possible to use them to overthrow the government, they are not a bulwark of liberty but rather a threat to it.To conceive of guns defending our liberties, we have to be thinking two revolutions ahead. Once someone has taken our liberty away, then maybe we could use guns to put it back. But right now, since we have liberty, they can only be used to take it away.On this basis, whether or not guns are good would depend on the state of the particular nation in question. In China, perhaps they could be a force for liberty; in the USA, they imperil it.

Sorry, I was away due to the heavy hand of tyranny. In places where there is no SWAT then a special unit can exist with advanced training. But this is far from the topic of civilians with guns.- Oni