I'm CANADIAN and very unarmed and very much so a citizen. Your logic is very flawed if you think what you carry on your hip dictates your social status.

by Anonymous 11 years ago

No government is impervious to tyranny, and an armed people are harder to rule with an iron fist. Maybe that works for Canada. Here? We have the Constitution that guarantees our freedom, and guns to ensure it will never be taken. That's the point of the 2nd amendment. I wasn't saying someone is a lesser person, but that they are subject to the whims of their government.

by Anonymous 11 years ago

When I first read your post I disagreed but your comment made me change my mind.

by Anonymous 11 years ago

Well good. I'm glad I could re word. I'm trying to work on my wording.

by Anonymous 11 years ago

Guns don't equal freedom. Just because you possess a fire arm doesn't mean that your in charge or have a say you can still be controlled by somebody with a bigger gun. Unless you think your pistol or what ever gun you have is going to stand up against a tank or a fighter jet or helicopter that are designed for war... Wake up guns don't guarantee anything but eventually somebody is going to shoot and it's not guaranteed which side of the bullet your going to be on.

by Anonymous 11 years ago

Who wants to start a civil war? People overthrow their Governments, it happens. We are a force to be reckoned with because we take our freedom seriously, obviously. The pro-gun movement is growing and thwarting attempts to erode our constitutional rights everyday. If people want to kill people, they will. Singling out one thing that does it is a silly, simple-minded view.

by Anonymous 11 years ago

Just because the 1947 law changed your title from "subject" to "citizen" doesn't make it so, any more than the emancipation proclamation actually freed the slaves in the US. It took guns to make it happen that the US, Ireland, India, Asia and Africa.

by Anonymous 11 years ago

Look at it this way: Say every citizen in Canada is unarmed. Exactly what power do you hold over your government? Say the PM decides to become a dictator, what are any of you going to do about it? You're going to do precisely nothing. They will rule you with absolute power because the Government has guns, and none of you do. I brought this scenario up with someone else, and their suggestion was "vote the person out of power". What good is that going to do if you have no force to back your vote up?

by Anonymous 11 years ago

Somehow I was expecting the last word to be "target" instead of "subject." too much?

by Anonymous 11 years ago

Not at all.

by Anonymous 11 years ago

There are many ways for citizens of a country to prevent dictatorship besides being armed, and I think they are citizens regardless. If you mean "citizens" in technicality, they retain citizenship even in a dictatorship, but if you mean connotatively, then I think a person still is a citizen as long as they have a say, which they don't need to possess guns to have. I understand what you're saying, but you're thinking of it potentially, if a government actually attempted to become a dictatorship through force, then you're right. However, I think such a perspective is erroneous to adopt until such a circumstance is actually presented

by Anonymous 11 years ago

I suppose that just comes down to a matter of opinion then. I don't think citizens who have been disarmed have a say. It seems only logical when a government has total power like that, if they decide to enforce something, even under the pretense of "for the good of all", they absolutely have that ability. It would be like taking candy from a baby. A peaceful overthrow could happen as well, I'll give you that. I believe it did recently happen somewhere. I can't recall right now. I'm only saying either is possible, and I personally find the likelihood for the first low. By subject, I merely mean the possibility of control is very real, just as real as if we had a king. When it comes to reserving the freedom we, culturally, worked very hard for, the founding fathers had the right idea, and no one can say it's outdated unless we have somehow become impervious to tyranny and corruption. If you take that, in addition to the fact that there are many ways (that I think would be more effective) to control our gun crime problem it just seems like the most logical approach. Reasonable restrictions in addition to metal detectors, armed guards, and steps to help our mentally ill.

by Anonymous 11 years ago

I'm not advocating a ban on firearms by saying this, but I feel that if the government wanted to become a dictatorship, our guns would be almost useless to stop them because they'd simply raid homes to confiscate them, if that's what it took. Perhaps even in a different manner, but they'd find a way regardless. I think that in a dictatorship we wouldn't have a say unarmed, but in the U.S. right now, not having a gun does not mean not having a say. We still vote and have all the rights and the same say as those who possess firearms

by Anonymous 11 years ago

Who knows how long that would last after a national gun ban, though. If it were to happen. A number of states, and some counties have responded to this talk of banning semi-automatic weapons by expressing their intentions to punish any federal agent trying to confiscate them in their state with jail. It's very possible to fight back, as states are showing. Throwing the fed in jail is a pretty huge statement, grounds for a civil war even. On a citizen level, if people are really serious about their guns, and a whole lot are, they are going to form militias. How formidable is an organized militia with semi-automatic guns, much less guns in general? People with weapons pushed into a corner are absolutely a force to be reckoned with, and this is in addition to the state support that would also exist. So I don't think it's as easy as you say, just simply confiscating weapons. Guns equal power and as long we have them, we have a means of forcibly keeping our rights if need be.

by Anonymous 11 years ago

Okay I admit that you're right on that point and that I made it seem much easier, but I still think that the unarmed have a say. They are not subjects as the country is not, but they are "potentially" subjects in the event of a takeover or such

by Anonymous 11 years ago

Your willing to start a civil war over the right to bear arms how retarded and useless is that... American logic is retarded I'm amazed you haven't blown up the world yet....

by Anonymous 11 years ago

Absolutely. Freedom doesn't protect itself. Fighting for freedom is in our culture, it IS our culture. It's why we exist. I suggest you take an American history class.

by Anonymous 11 years ago

I don't think armed citizens are as strong a force as you're making them out to be. Sure, we could put up a fight. We might even make the government lose a few men. When it gets right down to it, however, the government has bigger and better guns than we have. They also have bombs and tanks and other weapons. A few riffles and semi-automatic weapons can't stand up to that. I don't want to see guns outlawed. I would like to see a bit more regulation in regards to firearm registration and gun show loopholes, but I don't want us to be unarmed. I'm just saying that even armed, we're pretty defenseless.

by Anonymous 11 years ago

Of course the unarmed have a say, but they only have a say because of the armed. As is often evidenced by the internet, human decency goes right out the window once the threat of physical repercussion is taken away. Democracy can only function as long as leaders are threatened with an uprising if they disobey the will of the people.

by Anonymous 11 years ago

Let's be specific in this and use some examples- what exactly are we all talking about by "having a say"? voting on bills, candidates, representatives, and so on? I think that U.S. citizens would still maintain all those rights even if they didn't have guns

by Anonymous 11 years ago

Yes, that's what I mean. All people should have equal rights, but those rights are protected by the people with firearms. It's kind of like how we used to back our currency with gold. Our currency actually meant something because it had a tangible thing backing it. Nowadays, currency only has the value we choose to assign it, and is completely meaningless otherwise. Armed citizens have tangible power in the form of firearms. If the Government is the only party with firearms, the word of the citizens only has as much power as is assigned to it by the Government. They //can// listen to us, but have no physical reason not to. This would work fine if humans were perfect, but they are susceptible to corruption. Someone said to me that it's funny that I think we should fear our military, but there has been a poll of the military that showed 25% of marines would be willing to fire upon citizens if given the order. That's cause enough for concern to me.

by Anonymous 11 years ago

While the government would have the power to overtake us, that does not mean they would have no reason not to. There is still law to which the government would be held, ad if that were blatantly opposed, even unarmed citizens would be able to intervene through legal methods and persecute the government members involved through trial

by Anonymous 11 years ago

And still, that only works if there is an actual threat to the ones being persecuted. Let's look at it on an even smaller scale. Say someone was arrested and was due to appear in court. The only reason they would show up is because there is the threat of a man with a gun coming to get them if they don't. Armed citizens are the Government's "man with a gun". A more modern day and larger scale example is Mexico. It's nigh impossible to legally obtain a firearm there. While the Government isn't controlling the people, cartels are controlling everyone. They understand that authority is typically derived from power, and power is derived from weaponry. Judges aren't safe, police aren't safe, and the citizens are certainly not safe. The only people who aren't getting routinely murdered by the cartels are groups of Mormons who opted to purchase firearms illegally. Due process and the legal system only work because somewhere down the line, someone will shoot you if you don't comply.

by Anonymous 11 years ago

Then I think the thing that differs in our opinions is whether or not we believe that the government would turn on us or not, in the event that guns are abolished. -Just saying, I don't believe in abolishing guns, I just don't think it would get //this// out of hand if we did

by Anonymous 11 years ago

I will admit I'm a bitter and not-trusting person. However, there is some stuff up with the United States Government that would cause me to not trust them. One of the biggest is the NDAA. Obama signed into effect the ability of the military to indefinitely detain US citizens without trial. I hear he was somewhat forced into it, but still, someone in power had to come up with that, as well as the method of forcing him into signing it. Considering that and some very shaky details concerning 9/11, the fact that they're trying to somewhat disarm us, and the fact they're perpetuating the War on Drugs (either out of ignorance or selfish motives), I //really// don't want to live in such a way that the only thing my safety relies on is the word of the entity responsible for all these things.

by Anonymous 11 years ago

I completely respect and understand that, while I differ on my personal opinion of the matter

by Anonymous 11 years ago

Your not living in a third world country... The threat of the American government completely turning on its people and becoming a democracy is low with or without guns... The need for people in America to have 27 automatic guns in order to feel safe is absurd. If your worried that some idiot is going to run down the street and kill innocent people then you should either move or maybe step up gun control and keep those kinds of things away from citizens. The guy whoe did the school shooting got the guns from his mother who was a school teacher!!! Why does a school teacher need to have weapons?!? That's insane. Also why were they so easily accessible to her son?! This whole topic is foolish when your talking to people who think that guns equal safety... If people had common curtesy and the respect for other people then they wouldn't be killing each other. Idk how people can have it in them to kill another person and end there life it's shocking.... But that's just my opinion I'm just rational and level headed... And still have the ability to vote and voice my opinion in many political matters without having to march down the street with an ak-47 to prove my point.

by Anonymous 11 years ago

You typed a lot without saying much of anything. That's all I can say.

by Anonymous 11 years ago

Who can say who "needs" guns and who doesn't? You can't outlaw guns and expect there to be piece and you can't rely on every single person to have basic human decency and not shoot up an elementary school. The vast majority of us will never kill another human being. But what about the few that do? Do you think outlawing guns will stop them? Last I checked heroin was illegal, but the streets still have a drug problem. If I'm being mugged, I would like to have the right to pull out a gun on my attacker.

by Anonymous 11 years ago

Last shooting...while Biden is having a meeting, talking about semi-automatic weapons, a kid is walking into a school with a SHOT GUN shooting people. So. Much. Stupid. If anyone in power cared about our children metal detectors and armed guards would already be in schools.

by Anonymous 11 years ago

I'd agree with you if you said "gun abolishment". Nothing wrong with getting rid of high caliber snipers, machine guns, bazookas, etc. or requiring registration and background checks for gun purchasers. That's gun control and we already have plenty of it in the USA.

by Anonymous 11 years ago

Not according to Obama, Biden, or any Democrat I know. Sigh. I'll try and be more specific with my wording next time good sir.

by Anonymous 11 years ago