I think you need to eat more fiber. I was trying to post a picture that appeared on my facebook page that a friend had posted. It didn't know how to do it and tried copying the link and hoping the picture would show up. It didn't work. I then tried to delete the entire post and I guess I don't know how to do that. I can count on mr constipated everytime though to raise a fuss.
I don't agree with this. The government has a vested interest in its people being alive. Without the people there's nothing to govern. There's no situation where the government would go to war with its own people, which is what it would take if the people are armed.
Again - look at Iraq and Afghanistan. "Terrorists" are essentially identical to "armed citizen militias." The difference is primarily in the tactics each is willing to ethically embrace, and the political position of the person applying the label.
What does Iraq and Afghanistan and terrorists have to do with an armed populace trying to prevent tyranny from taking hold in a democracy?
The armed resistance did nothing of significance. The remaining populace is still alive. One can put down a resistance without nuking the population in its entirety.
You cannot maintain a normal civilization with children safely going to school and people going to the theater and weddings while bombs are going off all the time and bullets are flying everywhere. It is also hell on the economy.
If the people are not armed, then there's no need for any military-like 'invasion' in the first place. The people are already defenseless and could be pushed around in much more subtle ways.
Why would those "subtle ways" not work against an armed populace? If the "subtle ways" would work regardless, and the tyrannical government desires a living subservient population, why not just stick with the "subtle ways" in the first place?
Subtle ways do not work regardless. If the population is armed, subtle ways will not work. Iraq is not equivalent to what the american military would do to its own population but some points can still be made. How long did it take american troops to subdue the iraqi resistance? How much bloodshed had to occur. Is the resistance truly quashed? If american troops returned to iraq in the numbers they had originally, the resistance would get turned up to the levels it had before. Iraq is actually a good example of why a population should be armed. America will never be able to take over iraq for its own. There will always be bloodshed and resistance and no one will ever be safe to walk down the streets. The economy will never take off in those conditions. The american government knows that the same thing will happen if they try to install a tyrannical government in the united states. There will be bloodshed in the streets and IED's will be continually going off and blowing people to bits. You might be able to establish a tyranny regardless, but you will never have peace and a safe environment for the people to live in and you will never have a strong economy.