Where do we go from here????

[Reverend Blair]

RE: Where do we go from h

Do you really that American citizens are going to overthrow their government, should they feel it's necessary, with what amount to a few assault rifles and pistols?

 

[I think not]

Re: RE: Where do we go from h

Do you really that American citizens are going to overthrow their government, should they feel it's necessary, with what amount to a few assault rifles and pistols?

That wasn't my point Rev. The point is if you allow the government to take one thing away, they will take everything else away. And will a few pistols and rifles make a difference? It sure seems to be the case in Iraq.

 

[Reverend Blair]

RE: Where do we go from h

The Iraqi people have lived through decades of strife. They have a lot of trained soldiers in their midst and a lot of people who feel they have nothing else to lose. They didn't rebel until invaded and occupied by a foreign force. They have a fair bit more than a few rifles and handguns...RPGs and high explosives for instance.

While I admit that the Bush regime could make things that bad, could actually become a failed state if the USD goes south, I doubt that you build that kind of resentment in less than a decade. As resentment like that builds, weapons show up even under the most dictatorial regimes.

The idea of weapons as a part of everyday rights and freedoms is ridiculous though. You have the laxest gun laws in the developed world. You also have the highest rate of gun crime in the developed world. The weapons your population currently has are not there to protect the people from the government, they are there to kill other citizens with.

 

[I think not]

The idea of weapons as a part of everyday rights and freedoms is ridiculous though.

To you perhaps, nevertheless as ridiculous as it may be, It's our constitutional right as is the unlimited taxation of its citizens in yours.

You have the laxest gun laws in the developed world. You also have the highest rate of gun crime in the developed world.

57% of gun related deaths are suicide, lets not forget that part. And out of the remaining 43% (87% were in large cities with very tough gun laws), so I'm not quite sure how you are relating lax gun laws with crime related deaths.

The weapons your population currently has are not there to protect the people from the government, they are there to kill other citizens with.

Do you really believe thats what they hand in mind when they inserted that in the constitution?

 

[Vanni Fucci]

Yeah, well, guns didn't exactly save anyone at Ruby Ridge or Waco now did they...

I think I made my point clear Vanni, but if it gets you through the day to rant about everything south of you, please by all means do so.

Well, I don't rant about everything south, just those things worth ranting about...and we've had similar incidents in our country too...the Mohawk uprising at Oka comes to mind, although it was found that the most militant mohawks were from south of the border...

Hey, some people here bring up the need for guns so as to balance power with the government. if that's the case, then it sure shows how much US citizens trust their government.

I don't agree with this either. One should never place implicit trust in any institution.

Having said that, I believe that there is no amount of guns available to the civilian population that will ever be more or better than what the government has with which to shoot you and sweep your bullet riddled corpse under the carpet...

Now as a humourous aside. If any enemy nation ever wanted to destroy the US, all it would need to do is say that it's prepared to defend americans' right to bear arms, and then just start dumping weapons randomly all over the US, left, tight and centre! Immagine that, while the allies were dropping bombs on Germany in WWII, an enemy aircraft would be dropping weapons and ammunition to the American people via parashute. Then they's just need to wait a few weeks, and next thing you know, the US would be invovled in an all out civil war, with so many sides no one would know whose side any one was on, all divided according to race, religion, you name it. Once the war is over, well, then I guess we could start having world peace. How does that strategy sound?

Very mature, read any good books lately?

Hey relax, he was just joking...you're still able to do that in Bush's Amerika, aren't you?

 

[Vanni Fucci]

[Do you really believe thats what they hand in mind when they inserted that in the constitution?

When they inserted that into the constitution, there was a tiny standing army and only local militias protecting the populace from aggressors...I think we can both agree that this is no longer the case, and your constitutional right to bear arms has outlived its original intent...

 

[I think not]

I don't agree with this either. One should never place implicit trust in any institution.

Agreed.

Having said that, I believe that there is no amount of guns available to the civilian population that will ever be more or better than what the government has with which to shoot you and sweep your bullet riddled corpse under the carpet...

Governments will almost always possess more firepower than any of its citizens. Having said that, throughout history it has always been an uprising of the people with much fewer weapons than their respective governments.

Hey relax, he was just joking...you're still able to do that in Bush's Amerika, aren't you?

He did say humorous aside, didn't he? And yes on occassion we are still permitted to make jokes

 

[I think not]

[Do you really believe thats what they hand in mind when they inserted that in the constitution?

When they inserted that into the constitution, there was a tiny standing army and only local militias protecting the populace from aggressors...I think we can both agree that this is no longer the case, and your constitutional right to bear arms has outlived its original intent...

I think you answered that question here:

I don't agree with this either. One should never place implicit trust in any institution.

And to add a bit more to it, until all governments do not possess any weapons, it has not been outlived.

 

[Vanni Fucci]

And to add a bit more to it, until all governments do not possess any weapons, it has not been outlived.

Do you actually believe that with the amount of guns that your citizenry possess, that you'd be able to overthrow a tyrannical government?

If indeed this is what you believe, my question then is this:

Why haven't you?

 

[I think not]

And to add a bit more to it, until all governments do not possess any weapons, it has not been outlived.

Do you actually believe that with the amount of guns that your citizenry possess, that you'd be able to overthrow a tyrannical government?

If indeed this is what you believe, my question then is this:

Why haven't you?

Yes I do believe it, if it is ever necessary. Just as it has happened in many countries throughout history. And what is a tyrannical government to you (although I share this view with you to a certain extent) to others it is not.

 

[mrmom2]

Hey Vanni I know we could overthrow our goverment here IT would be very easy even with just long guns There is not enuogh cops or armed forces in Canada to control us.I suspect if there was an uprising the millatary would not fire on its own citizens :wink: They would turn their guns on the politicians too :lol: :lol: Not like Ottawa's done them any favors Even if they didn't join us 40 fat bald guys from Hamilton wouldn't stand a chance :lol: :lol:

 

[Vanni Fucci]

Yes I do believe it, if it is ever necessary. Just as it has happened in many countries throughout history. And what is a tyrannical government to you (although I share this view with you to a certain extent) to others it is not.

Yes, it has happened in many countries thoughout history, but never before has a country's executive held control of such a formidable force as the executive branch of the US holds today. Never before has an army had the mobility, or possessed such fire power as your military and law enforcement agencies do today.

Any action against your government would be brutally put down.

As to the definition of a tyrranical government, I believe it would read something like this:

*clears throat*
A government that does not represent the majority, and as a consequence, legislation and policy is driven by self-serving interests.

Incidentally, I believe that my own government is falling into this category, and so I won't vote for them...but with all of the rigged elections these days, who knows who you'll be getting for a government...

 

[Vanni Fucci]

Hey Vanni I know we could overthrow our goverment here IT would be very easy even with just long guns There is not enuogh cops or armed forces in Canada to control us.I suspect if there was an uprising the millatary would not fire on its own citizens :wink: They would turn their guns on the politicians too :lol: :lol: Not like Ottawa's done them any favors Even if they didn't join us 40 fat bald guys from Hamilton wouldn't stand a chance :lol: :lol:

Well mom, I'm not prepared to go storming the Hill just yet...

 

[I think not]

Yes I do believe it, if it is ever necessary. Just as it has happened in many countries throughout history. And what is a tyrannical government to you (although I share this view with you to a certain extent) to others it is not.

Yes, it has happened in many countries thoughout history, but never before has a country's executive held control of such a formidable force as the executive branch of the US holds today. Never before has an army had the mobility, or possessed such fire power as your military and law enforcement agencies do today.

Any action against your government would be brutally put down.

As to the definition of a tyrranical government, I believe it would read something like this:

*clears throat*
A government that does not represent the majority, and as a consequence, legislation and policy is driven by self-serving interests.

Incidentally, I believe that my own government is falling into this category, and so I won't vote for them...but with all of the rigged elections these days, who knows who you'll be getting for a government...

Vanni, I think its safe to say we are agreeing on the most important issue in this discussion. We cannot trust any government. Period. And let history be the judge of what we "may" or "may not" do. The rest are speculations.
While your clearing your throat, rub your eyes and look at the results of the November elections.