3 ms·

Well it's a good thing we beat you brits in the war and have a superior constitution that protects our rights to bear arms. Speaking of the original subject, wa

Well it's a good thing we beat you brits in the war and have a superior constitution that protects our rights to bear arms. Speaking of the original subject, wasn't it some despotic king of yours that formed the star court in the first place? Am I going crazy or is LaRouche seeming a bit less crazy these days?

ionised 11y ago
The French beat the British for the US actually, because it was in their interests to have Britain lose their hold on the North American colonies. Without French support the American colonists would not have been able to maintain a prolonged resistance against Britain. At the same time, Britain's main forces were across the other side of the world, fighting battles that were more important to them at the time. They were a superpower with global concerns.
- tracker1 11y ago
  In the end, it's extremely difficult to fight against guerilla warfar against an enemy in their own territory. Generally 12-15% of the population is needed for an armed rebellion to be successful. It'd be hard for most countries to buy off enough soldiers to fight against that, in most areas. Just looking at Iraq and Afghanistan it's rough. The rifts in that entire region are problematic. Even with superior technology and training, there's no clear victory... the same could be said of domestic rebellion if it ever came to that in the U.S.A.
peteretep 11y ago
> have a superior constitution that protects our rights Mmm, you guys have certainly managed some impressive innovations in habeas corpus[0][1], property rights[2], and free speech[3][4] O_o [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incarceration_in_the_United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incarceration_in_the_United_St... [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plea_bargaining_in_the_United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plea_bargaining_in_the_United_... [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_forfeiture_in_the_United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_forfeiture_in_the_United... [3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citizens_United_v._FEC https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citizens_United_v._FEC [4] The article, innit?
- tracker1 11y ago
  In the end, after all other options... the right to bear arms is key to even being able to rebel. From a philosophical pov, not advocating armed rebellion. That said, I feel that firearms ownership is an essential right, and that efforts to ban them outright do not serve the public interest.
  - peteretep 11y ago
    > the right to bear arms is key to even being able to rebel This couldn't be further from the truth. Every successful armed regime change has had state military sponsorship. But most regime changes are brought about peacefully, and then the army changes sides.

ionised 11y ago

The French beat the British for the US actually, because it was in their interests to have Britain lose their hold on the North American colonies. Without French support the American colonists would not have been able to maintain a prolonged resistance against Britain. At the same time, Britain's main forces were across the other side of the world, fighting battles that were more important to them at the time. They were a superpower with global concerns.

tracker1 11y ago
In the end, it's extremely difficult to fight against guerilla warfar against an enemy in their own territory. Generally 12-15% of the population is needed for an armed rebellion to be successful. It'd be hard for most countries to buy off enough soldiers to fight against that, in most areas. Just looking at Iraq and Afghanistan it's rough. The rifts in that entire region are problematic. Even with superior technology and training, there's no clear victory... the same could be said of domestic rebellion if it ever came to that in the U.S.A.

peteretep 11y ago

> have a superior constitution that protects our rights Mmm, you guys have certainly managed some impressive innovations in habeas corpus[0][1], property rights[2], and free speech[3][4] O_o [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incarceration_in_the_United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incarceration_in_the_United_St... [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plea_bargaining_in_the_United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plea_bargaining_in_the_United_... [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_forfeiture_in_the_United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_forfeiture_in_the_United... [3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citizens_United_v._FEC https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citizens_United_v._FEC [4] The article, innit?

tracker1 11y ago
In the end, after all other options... the right to bear arms is key to even being able to rebel. From a philosophical pov, not advocating armed rebellion. That said, I feel that firearms ownership is an essential right, and that efforts to ban them outright do not serve the public interest.
- peteretep 11y ago
  > the right to bear arms is key to even being able to rebel This couldn't be further from the truth. Every successful armed regime change has had state military sponsorship. But most regime changes are brought about peacefully, and then the army changes sides.