But this helps bolster Hodgman's point. The gov't has vast amounts of weaponry and army. Yeah, you have guns. But so what? You're gonna get crushed anyway. The gov't is going to continue anyway.

This question doesn't really make sense in the frame of a revolution. If one were to start an armed revolt, it wouldn't be so much about being able to defeat the opposing force so much as making the cost high enough that the opposing force wouldn't think it is worth it to engage. Force is as much a political tool as it is a military tool.

I really think the argument that having guns in case of revolution not making sense is really ignorant of American history. You might not have the same frame of reference living somewhere else, but the US was literally founded by a group of armed citizens fighting for something they believed in against a government that had them totally outgunned. I don't understand how you could claim it's absurd when the country owes it's existence to that right.

The only way to really stop stuff like that from happening is an informed citizenry that goes to their gov't (with no guns) and demand it to stop.

What makes you so sure that an informed citizenry demanding the government stop will actually result in the government stopping?

The birth of democracy in Australia was also born out of a (much smaller) armed rebellion, caused by people being fed up with taxation without representation. There was only one battle, with 27 deaths, but that was enough to bring the issue out in the open, so that laws had to be changed in order to keep the populace calm and stop the insurgency from popping back up.

...but now we have democracy, so we don't need arms any more. The weapons of war against government evils these days are fundraising campaigns for television and newspaper advertising... The whole point of democracy is that the people can effect change through mass dialogue, rather than mass violence.

There's also countless European countries that fought wars in order to secure their modern forms of government.
To me, not really understanding American culture, the idea that the US has to be armed because there's been rebellions how ever many generations ago, seems like something stemming from the wacky "american exceptionalism" school of thought.

Does anyone really think that if you tried to declare independence from the state, and announced that you had arms to defend your independence, you wouldn't just be branded as a terrorist and very soon become the next ruby ridge massacre?

But this helps bolster Hodgman's point. The gov't has vast amounts of weaponry and army. Yeah, you have guns. But so what? You're gonna get crushed anyway. The gov't is going to continue anyway.

This question doesn't really make sense in the frame of a revolution. If one were to start an armed revolt, it wouldn't be so much about being able to defeat the opposing force so much as making the cost high enough that the opposing force wouldn't think it is worth it to engage. Force is as much a political tool as it is a military tool.

And that works when you and the government have similar class of weapons. For instance, the Syrian government would have routed the rebels by now, if the UN, NATO, US, and EU didn't intervene and put them on an even playing field. Moreso with the war in Libya.

I really think the argument that having guns in case of revolution not making sense is really ignorant of American history. You might not have the same frame of reference living somewhere else, but the US was literally founded by a group of armed citizens fighting for something they believed in against a government that had them totally outgunned. I don't understand how you could claim it's absurd when the country owes it's existence to that right.

17th century weaponry, help from the French, and guerilla warfare won the day. But like you said, the price of continuing the war made Britain stop. Plus we're comparing 17th century weapons and situation to what would happen in the 21st century. Very very different things.

The only way to really stop stuff like that from happening is an informed citizenry that goes to their gov't (with no guns) and demand it to stop.

What makes you so sure that an informed citizenry demanding the government stop will actually result in the government stopping?

Are we talking about a democracy or a dictatorship? My sentence was in reference to the US.

The only way to really stop stuff like that from happening is an informed citizenry that goes to their gov't (with no guns) and demand it to stop.

What makes you so sure that an informed citizenry demanding the government stop will actually result in the government stopping?

Because it's been done on countless occasions in the past, civil rights movement, the amendment and repeal of that amendment against liquor, the right for women to vote, teaching evolution in schools, etc. their are so many occasions where the US government has changed laws, and policy's for the better. That saying it doesn't work is absolutely ridiculous. It's not something that happens overnight, but if you've got the drive to see a change, any person can make that change, you just can't expect it to happen instantly.

Same goes for owning guns, it's a bad idea to let the average person own them.

Your turn to think very closely about something, now. No knee-jerk reactions, here, no blindly spouting the party line. Exactly why is it a bad idea for the "average person" to own a firearm? Are average people the ones who do bad things with them? Is it honestly your opinion that a full 50% of the population would use firearms to commit crimes or otherwise behave irresponsibly with a gun if they had one? Really? Yikes. I wonder what kind of people you keep around you, that you have that perception. I hope to God that none of them have a driver's license. Argue what you want about the accessibility of firearms making it easier to commit certain crimes or violent acts at the spur of the moment; I won't deny that. But at least accept that that is the real question at issue here, not whether or not the average person is such a fumbling moron or blood-crazed lunatic that they simply can't be trusted with a firearm. If that ever does become the main issue, if it ever gets to the point that the average citizen really can't be trusted with a firearm, then there really is no hope for us at all.

Alright, no knee-jerk reaction coming here :) , but the only thing I'd like people to consider is if it really is safe to have so many guns amongst average citizens. Granted, the majority of people are not murderers, but do you really feel comfortable with the easy access to guns in this country? There are more guns in this country than people. The guy in Newtown massacred kids because his mom felt it necessary to own a whole array of weapons. I've heard many arguments claiming various reasons for that massacre, but the fact is that he saw a gun, he decided to use it. Easy access to guns is the cause of plenty of crimes. Removing guns will remove lots of gun crime in the US. There are parts of cities that are free fire zones. They may as well be war zones. What I do not get is how removing guns will not reduce gun crime in the US. There are hurdles to implementing this law, but its not impossible. Given time, it will work. No solution will work overnight.

Moreover, you really think that we need guns to defend against the possibility that the government may become oppressive? Really? By that logic, every able bodied person should be trained in guerilla warfare, etc, just "in case" the government all of a sudden decides to become a dictatorship. There are so many more things that people then should do to prepare for this eventuality. Trust me, if the government was going to become a dictatorship soon, we'd see the signs. It's not happening any time soon. By that point, people would find ways to acquire weapons. I don't see how people have this perception that the government might become a dictatorship.

What I do not get is how removing guns will not reduce gun crime in the US.

The legitimate argument is: If you remove all the guns from the law-abiding citizens, how will they protect themselves from the law-breaking criminals (who have guns)? How will the gov't ensure that no one has guns? Citizen and criminal alike.

Trust me, if the government was going to become a dictatorship soon, we'd see the signs. It's not happening any time soon. By that point, people would find ways to acquire weapons. I don't see how people have this perception that the government might become a dictatorship.

America isn't turning into a dictatorship. It's actually turning into something worse. Some dictatorships through history have been surprisingly honest and non-corrupt. Pretty nuts when an honest dictatorship is preferable to the soggy shitfest that we have now, where copyright violations can net you more prison time than rape or murder, and if someone has enough money they can do pretty much whatever they want. Besides, obama seems to be trying to turn it into... something, anyway. What do you call it when rampant budget cuts and a sequester proposed by obama himself run wild through the country, when the White house can't even do tours any more because there's no more money, but the president decides that this would be an excellent time to take back to back multi-million dollar vacations and golf trips (on the taxpayer dime), then when people complain he generously pledges to donate 5% of his meager official salary in the name of doing his fair share? If not a dictatorship, then what the fuck, exactly, is that?

People crack me up. You have things like Occupy Wall Street, where a bunch of hippies dress up in their tightest skinny jeans and their horn-rimmy-est glasses and march around screaming about how wall street corruption is ruining this country, but you tell them that the government might (and probably will) someday turn on them and they get all "ban guns, government won't hurt us!" instead. It's funny, I tell ya.

-You are drunk again??

-Shut the fuck up you whore

*bam bam bam*

-Hey Timmy, I have found my father's gun, ain't it *bam* oh shit!

-Honey, I think there's a thief in the house. -There he is *bam bam bam bam*

*light goes up

-Noooooooo Timmy nooooooooooo!!!!!!!

There were plans in Hungary to make getting and owning firearms far more easier. Argument: so that families can protect their belongings and themselves.

In Hungary, most robbers and common criminals have mostly no or fake or riot weapons, they don't need to be afraid. Most robberies end up in no one getting hurt, or only getting beaten up.

Now, if we'd legalize guns, the arms race would begin, and criminals will have the advantage.

Sorry for the random shit post.

Sorry for the random shit post.

Not really a shit post. It's a good point. At this point in the US, though, unless they can somehow magically remove the guns from the possession of assholes, then outlawing them will leave guns only in the hands of assholes. Eventually, as guns break or are lost or confiscated and no more come in, the situation might equalize but in the meantime there would be an awful lot of bad things happening. Although, given people's propensity here for not giving a flying fuck about prohibited things (drugs, anyone? booze, anyone?) and with Mexico right next door, even assuming that no more guns would come in is a pretty risky assumption to make.

I think that a lot of the Europeans here underestimate the awesome power of a very long and horribly insecure land border with Mexico. Hungary has a grand total of 2171km of land borders, and those are with countries that probably don't have any more guns than Hungary does. US has 3169km of border just with fucking Mexico, and most of it's wilderness and desert.

Granted, in recent years it seems like Obama's fast and furious dumbfuckery sent more guns that way than were coming in this way, but still the fact remains that if you're an asshole who wants a gun but the government won't let you buy one, you can bet your ass that somebody down there will be willing to sell you one and launch it over the fence with a drug catapult.

good grief, I didn't realize there were people in this world who actually think Americas will rise up against their government and attack them with guns in their life time.

You sound like somebody from the early 1700s.

yeah, your going to shoot all the politicians and then take on the army.

or you could vote for someone else. If the government becomes a dictatorship no doubt other countries will step in.

We live in a different world to that of the 1700's.

In the 1700's freedom meant "I wont die because the current regime stinks"

today it means "I can download porn and smoke weed in my bedroom"

average Joe won't fight for the latter.