Originally Posted by MiddleAgedAl
Yes, it would be as easy for them as it has already been in Canada or Australia or England for 200+ years now. Remember, as recently as 100 years ago, England effectively still "ran the world". They were the World Police, the USA of their time. The English people then certainly couldnt rely on the USA coming in to protect them, and yet their citizens didnt feel that the absence of such offshore protection created a need to be heavily armed themselves to deter tyranny.
For anyone who really feels that the only thing stopping the gov, your own fellow Americans, from being the next Hitler is the deterrent of you shooting them dead if they try, then man, I don't know what to say. You must have a much lower opinion of your own people than most other G8 citizens have of their own people. That's really depressing. You're ok with armed guards and lockdowns at schools, so it becomes much like a prison, because youre worried about a higher risk of government tyranny if people cant have whatever guns they want?
This is the same gov that can't even pass a bloody federal budget for the last 1000+ days, but would plan a coordinated attack against it's own people, and it's soldiers would all be happy to execute that plan against their fellow citizens.
If that scenario falls under "realistic risks to plan for", and isn't a much lower priority than "reinforce roof to deflect possible meteor strike while I sleep", then shit, that must be an awfully paranoid existance. It would be funny if it wasnt so tragic. Sorry, but I'd say anyone like that is already enslaved, albeit perhaps not in a physical way.
If I'm wrong, feel free to laugh at me when they cart me away to the camp cause I cant shoot back at them.
I feel like you're comments are confined to absolutes. I'll be honest with you in saying that i'm not 100% sure how all the countries you keep referring to were formed but i'm going to take a guess and say that it wasn't out of revolution. This country was founded by a group of people who were some what shady and defiantly untrusting even of their peers. Even the 1st amendment was infringed upon while the ink was still wet on the constitution.
Our government was largely corrupted from early on. Not necessary corrupt by it's most current definition, but corrupted by power none the less. Our government isn't Canada's government nor is it Australia's government. Just because it hasn't happened in x amount of years there doesn't mean it can't and won't happen somewhere else.
As you've seen from my posts in other threads, i'm ok with reasonable legislation to help control criminal use of firearms. i'm not ok with punishing 99.994% of the population that hasn't broken the existing laws against murder because of the .0004% who do.
The other things which you call outlandish, i call possible. Plausible, probably not, but possible, yes. I'm not living in any kind of enslaved paranoia either. It would seem to me with your logic and openness to other possibilities you would concede the mere possibility of absolute power and control over the people by the government.
With it being just a mere possibility, appease me for a moment and tell me what would stop the government from assuming absolute power over the people if the people are not armed?