Summations Only

The main problem is that governments aren't honest, because they know how to manipulate large numbers in terms of election theory. An armed populace has not lead to honesty in American politics, as the amount of honesty in American politics is as minimal as possible. Nor has it served as much a dissuasion from corruption, denying people rights, acquiring ever more powers to spy on the population. Sometimes I wonder if the only thing the American people would revolt over is gun ownership - 'We need our guns to stop the government gettin' our guns!'American tyranny will probably come at the consent of the People - much like German tyranny in the 20th Century. I doubt anyone is going to try a military coup or a 'people's' revolution. I think RPGs are generally the Soviet ones, the ones the 'bad guys' use. The good guys use LAWs I think these days, though bazookas too I think (Rocket Launcher M1 and variants, the M9 and others). But I'm no military geek, so I could be wrong. I don't care who regulates them, but sure I'm happy for the states to do their own regulating. I'm perfectly content for the states to regulate marriage. As long as they do it within the realms of federal law. For instance, I would oppose a state that said that only white people could marry, and my argument would probably look very much like the argument that states should allow gay marriage. Again, as long as the states regulations are lawful, I'm fine with them regulating the displays of religion.The current consensus among the judicial branch seems to be that governments cannot display religious items that could be construed as promoting one religion etc. So the states regulations should reflect this. We've done gay marriage, gun control, abortion, the liberal media, and whatever else has struck as sufficiently interesting to discuss. I look forward to seeing future posts from you.

And it has already been pointed out that that's impossible. Are you advocating futile terrorist acts against an overwhelmingly superior tyranny?

Well, . . . to be more specific, . . . MANUFACTURED consent.(hooray for the corporate media with ties to big business and the government, . . . hooray, hooray, hooray)Manufacturing Consent - Wikipedia

Where? Who pointed it out? And why's it impossible? I'm advocating precisely what I say I'm advocating.

Oh stop being sily. I never specifically said YOU did. You have argued that the citizenry should bear arms such that they are capable of taking on the government military.So tell me - Do you think the citizenry should have access to the same level of armament that the military has access to?What level of armament do you think the US military should be eqipped with? Tanks? Subs? Missiles? Fighter jets? Nukes? Smart bombs? Bio tech weapons? What level of armament yom think the military should be equipped with and would you advocate the citenzenry matching that?

I don't think that's what the 2nd Amendment means. Its not that the People will bear enough arms to win in a battle against the military; its that the federal goverment is dissuaded from oppressing the People when they're armed.If the citizens don't have guns, you can pretty much push them around into anything, but if they are armed then that limits a lot of what you can do without it ending up in killing them (like forcing them out of their homes or something). And the government has a vested interest in its civilians being alive.The Founders thought that the security of the free state depended on the People being armed. That goes for foreign invasion too. Or a large disaster, or something. Its not just about the government. They're too dangerous. There's reasonable limitations to what arms should be allowed. Destructive Devices (think explosions) are on the no-no list.Here's the wiki link on DD's:Destructive device - Wikipedia

A better question is: Should there even be a 'military'?

No, that question is way stupider.

So, to return to my specific question, do you think the Mafia should be "empowered" to stand off the government if so they please?

What a load of toss, my dear chap. Might I suggest that if you don't know what liberals think or why they think it, you could always ask one.

The Mafia is not a person.Edited by Jon, : No reason given.

I'm glad you are not one of those advocating civilian guns as some sort of method of holding the national military at bay.But the alternative reasons you give for gun ownership don't make much more sense really. For example is there any evidence that governments in places where guns are not widely available (e.g. the UK) go round forcing people out of their homes and suchlike? Is it really because people own guns that the US government doesn't generally do such things? In states where guns are more controlled does this happen more? I'm sure they did. But all the evidence of modern Western democratic states suggests that people being armed really isn't necessary to that end. Well how dangerous is "too dangerous"...? Death rate stats in the US suggest that guns are "too dangerous" don't they?

Just because such things aren't happening right now is irrelevant to the point.Your failure to learn history is not evidence in this thread. Of course that's what it suggests. That's why we have all these democracies, after all, because unarmed people nicely petitioned their monarchs a couple hundred years ago or so for their independence and it was expediently granted.Get real!People don't need guns in a democracy so long as the democracy remains democratic. But what happens when those in power decide they want just a little more power? Or a lot more power? What happens when a democracy stops being a democracy and starts being a dictatorship... and then a tyranny?How do the people stand up and say 'enough is enough' when they've nothing to stand on? No. Because despite repeated requests by crashfrog, no one in this thread has yet laid out the mechanism by which guns cause people to commit violent crimes. A better conclusion to draw from statistics on violent crime is that the U.S. is a violent country. After all, it is people who commit those crimesnot guns with legs.Jon

Yes, the United States has a population that is violent prone. Repressed peoples in socialist states have many of these primal drives removed. If you know you have very little chance to move up in class because you do not have political connections and know the right people, your drive to excel is sapped and you resort to drink and be satisfied with your excessive vacation time allotted you and your free medical care and perhaps shoot up some heroine...anything to remove to dull existence of socialistic life. There is nothing in that lifestyle to cause any violent tendencies in the population.Edited by Voltaire30, : No reason given.

Well in recent times they foster a climate of fear against a rather vague and never ending threat and then take it in the name of national security. If you think the citizenry owning pistols and suchlike is "something to stand on" then we are back to your idiotic advocacy of Joe the plumber and his buddies taking on the military might of a superpower again.Do you think the citizenry should have access to the same level of armament that the military has access to?The US military is equipped with tanks, subs, missiles, fighter jets, nukes, smart bombs, biotech weapons and heaven alone knows what else.What level of armament do you think the citizenry needs to match that? Quite.