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.

-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.