5 ms·
I was just answering to OP who talked like the fact that it is on the constitution is somehow a valid reason not to change the law. >Finally, I'm sorry to say
by jQueryIsAwesome 14y ago
I was just answering to OP who talked like the fact that it is on the constitution is somehow a valid reason not to change the law.
>Finally, I'm sorry to say this and I know it gets old, but the U.S. constitution identifies a right to keep and bear arms.
But ok; I am going to pile on the other hundreds of comments making noise and tell you what I think America should do.
Decriminalize all drugs first (or at the same time). Then change the constitution and proclaim nobody should have guns except the police/military and some special cases (some bodyguards, bank guards); despite the popularity of "guns don't kill people" is pretty clear that where guns are the number of gunshot victims are always higher. Anyone who thinks they can overthrow the USA government from inside is delusional, before there is even 1000 people organized all forms of communication would be shout down; even internet. Your only hope to overthrow the USA government if such thing ever is required is that some generals and soldiers of the USA army itself revel.
Obviously this change would need to happen gradually; first the high caliber guns and then progressively the others; the government should pay for the guns so citizens have one more incentive to give them away.
- jff 14y agoYes, boil that frog slowly, and drug him first so he really won't realize it's happening.
- jQueryIsAwesome 14y agoIt isn't nice to pretend you could overthrow your government, yeah, is nice as "religion" nice, as "delusional but thankfully uncheckable" nice.
- tsotha 14y agoI don't see any reason why we couldn't overthrow our government. It happens all over the world on a regular basis. Don't confuse "don't want to overthrow the government" with "can't overthrow the government".
- jQueryIsAwesome 14y agoYou see; the amount of surveillance and military resources exponentially exceeds the ones from the countries you are talking about.
- tsotha 14y agoSo does the amount of resources available to potential rebels. And you're making a classic mistake here. Revolutions don't succeed in the face of unified military opposition. In any country. The scenario in a successful US revolution would be a schism or complete mutiny of the armed forces.
- jQueryIsAwesome 14y agoI did mention that; anyway; nobody is asking to ban weapons for the military so what is your point?
- tsotha 14y agoWith an armed citizenry you need less of the military on your side.
- jQueryIsAwesome 14y agoYou are very naive; take a look around, unless somehow most Americans stop being fat slow ignorant arrogant elitist self-rightous fools you have a pretty incompetent guerrilla; wish most likely would use the guns just to kill other citizens who disagree with the revolution and many would die because those have guns too. The 2nd amendment was wrote in a time were the enemy was an external entity (Britain), now it would be pointless and more nasty... well, actually it already is.
- tsotha 14y agoI have to chuckle when you, of all people, call me naive. I can only think your opinion of Americans is formed solely by watching television, as you have no idea what you're talking about. Well, I don't expect someone to understand when he lives in a country full of drug traffickers and communists. Probably gun control is the right thing for you.
- tomp 14y agoThe frog is already being boiled. And it's drugged by FUD of media and propaganda.
- baddox 14y ago> Anyone who thinks they can overthrow the USA government from inside is delusional, before there is even 1000 people organized all forms of communication would be shout down; even internet. "Overthrowing the government" makes it sound like an offensive operation, which is indeed fairly impractical. However, the real value of a large armed population is that it makes martial law and military occupation extremely difficult. It's a defensive advantage against an oppressive government. Look at the difficulty the US military has faced in its attempts to occupy Iraq, with a much smaller, poorer, and less sophisticated armed population. If the US government wanted to simply commit genocide against its population, sure, it could use chemical or nuclear weapons with little chance of civilian resistance, but there's not a huge advantage for even the most insane oppressive regime to do that. > Then change the constitution and proclaim nobody should have guns except the police/military and some special cases (some bodyguards, bank guards). Constitution or not, this is a deeply disturbing recommendation for many reasons, the most obvious of which is the fact that many people use guns for subsistence or income supplementation.