On removing government.

[Svartalf]

That's one of the ideas behind people having their own stuff, yes.

[Rum]

That's one of the ideas behind people having their own stuff, yes.

I am aware of the American constitution but it was written in a different era. The thought of American citizenry taking up arms to overthrow their government in this day and age is simply ludicrous.

[Svartalf]

I'd say 'unlikely' rather than ludicrous... If you assume a regime hated enough to send a sufficient part of the population into armed rebellion, they just might not have enough soldiers and cops to quash it...

Of course, the Republicans have the self contradictory trait of being where both the neocons and other tyrannous loons most likely to set up the kind of regime that would generate such a revolt, and the small government and gun nuts most likely to lead the way down the armed insurrection path... though maybe not against ultra constervatives...

[Rum]

I think so unlikely as to be off the scale. And I don't buy Seth's view that an armed citizenry makes it more likely or more successful. The French, as a good example, have often taken to the streets and essentially overthrown their governments as you know. The British are also, despite an everyday sort of conformity and very anti-authority at their core and an uprising of the sort we are talking about are at least as likely in either country as in America...which is of course to say very unlikely as things stand.

[Svartalf]

and if the moron in charge of the Bastille had had his troops shoot the mob instead of surrendering, he might have nipped the Revolution in the bud and been alive at the end of the day... after all, the rioters went to storm the fortress to get at the weapon stores.

Also, I notice that the last case of government falling to armed insurrection we've had has been was the Orleans monarchy, after the 1848 riots... What did Napoleon the lesser do in the aftermath? tear down the labyrinthine streets of Paris to make way for straight and wide avenues that would make troop movements easy, including with artillery if needed, should quelling unrest become necessary. Similarly, our restrictions on the right to own and keep arms date back to 1939, when the government was fearing unrest similar to the Russian October Revolution, or the German 1918 revolution...

Prrof enough that an armed population IS a danger to government if said government managers to anger it.

[Hermit]

the last case of government falling to armed insurrection we've had has been was the Orleans monarchy, after the 1848 riots...

Ignoring the fact that several governments have been toppled by armed insurrections since 1948, this brings up an interesting point: Many popular insurrections have brought about the fall of governments without a shot being fired or without any significant armed combat or even the threat of it. The Phillipines, Iran, Poland, East Germany, Hungary, Czechoslovakia, the USSR...

[Svartalf]

Emphasis on "we've had", I was talking specifically about French events, not about events in the whole world.
Also, the question I was dealing with, viz : Rum's reaction to Seth's conceit that an armed citizenship can seriously contribute to the removal of obnoxious governing bodies or people, specifically excludes the cases of government removal by peaceful protest.
Not that such an event is impossible, but it is not the side of the question we're talking about at the moment.

[Hermit]

Also, the question I was dealing with, viz : Rum's reaction to Seth's conceit that an armed citizenship can seriously contribute to the removal of obnoxious governing bodies or people, specifically excludes the cases of government removal by peaceful protest.
Not that such an event is impossible, but it is not the side of the question we're talking about at the moment.

Which is why I have raised it. It's a useful consideration in light of Seth's views in regard to the right to bear arms as a necessary prerequisite to bring down governments by its own peoples.

[amused]

I'd say 'unlikely' rather than ludicrous... If you assume a regime hated enough to send a sufficient part of the population into armed rebellion, they just might not have enough soldiers and cops to quash it...

Of course, the Republicans have the self contradictory trait of being where both the neocons and other tyrannous loons most likely to set up the kind of regime that would generate such a revolt, and the small government and gun nuts most likely to lead the way down the armed insurrection path... though maybe not against ultra constervatives...

Yes. I would be among the first to support the counter-revolution against the libertarians and neocons because they would immediately become the murderous tyrants they warn us about. I would be quite amused to watch them try to go up against our army with all its modern weaponry.

It IS ludicrous that a few nuts clinging to their gods and guns would have any ability to replace the US government. We already have a mechanism for that in place, it's called elections. A huge portion of our government is up for recall every two years - the House of Representatives, which controls the spending. If it isn't funded, it doesn't happen.

[Svartalf]

Also, the question I was dealing with, viz : Rum's reaction to Seth's conceit that an armed citizenship can seriously contribute to the removal of obnoxious governing bodies or people, specifically excludes the cases of government removal by peaceful protest.
Not that such an event is impossible, but it is not the side of the question we're talking about at the moment.

Which is why I have raised it. It's a useful consideration in light of Seth's views in regard to the right to bear arms as a necessary prerequisite to bring down governments by its own peoples.

Necessary prerequisite? Maybe not... helpful element? Most likely....

Funny factoid : we have an extremely restrictive legislation on weapons. That legislation is a relatively recent development (April 1939); before then people were free to keep weapons, including military rifles, and up to 5 kg of gunpowder and other explosives at home. The reason why the legislation has remained in the last 70 years is that, back when we were writing down the declaration of human rights, the right to keep weapons was regarded as so basic that it was deemed totally superfluous to write it down. So it is not in our constitution, and was not protected when tyrannous #%ù£$ decided to abridge it.

[Horwood Beer-Master]

...I am aware of the American constitution but it was written in a different era. The thought of American citizenry taking up arms to overthrow their government in this day and age is simply ludicrous.

Yup. The only way an armed coup could overthrow the US government is if it had the support of a significant percentage of the armed forces, and the American intelligence agencies would have to be spectacularly incompetent (even by their standards) not to nip such widespread mutinous sentiment in the bud before it became dangerous.

Unless of course the intelligence agencies were involved, in which case hilarious inept failure is inevitable, and the whole thing gets portrayed in a Hollywood comedy ten years later.


No if the American (or British) civilisation were to fall, it would go more like this.., http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-18159752

"...not with a bang but a whimper"

[Tyrannical]

The entire US House and a third of Senators are elected every two years, that's a pretty quick turnaround. Even quicker since they are always considering their re-election.
We do allow for impeachment of elected officials,but that is generally only for crime and not incompetence.

[Svartalf]

Of course, if incompetence were a motive, the entire legislature would be booting themselves out of the capitol about as soon as elected.

[Audley Strange]

The entire US House and a third of Senators are elected every two years, that's a pretty quick turnaround. Even quicker since they are always considering their re-election.
We do allow for impeachment of elected officials,but that is generally only for crime and not incompetence.

This is a good point actually. A very limited term is a good way to keep them on their toes, but as you point out it leaves them little time to do anything but plan a re-election campaign. Perhaps that's the problem. Perhaps that because re-election costs so much and is almost constant, you've not really got a government at all but something akin to a well produced cross between the West Wing and A Reality Show.

Who's governing?

[Svartalf]

Actually,n that short a term is counterproductive, because they don't have time to do actual work before starting to neglect their duties to go onto the campaign trail again.