What would justify the overthrow of the American Government?

reply to post by sir_chancealot


You know, I starred your post where you quoted the Declaration of Independence. However, I disagree with you in this one.

That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.

There is nothing wrong with our "Form of Government." The structure is sound. It is like a good car, loaded up with horrible drivers.

We need to change the drivers, and we need to enact serious campaign finance reform that keeps corporate money from buying our elections. We need to set firm boundaries over whether or not corporations should be allowed the rights of citizenship.

And, we the people need to get off of our butts and be responsible more than just every four years for overseeing our elected leaders. We the people in our laziness and apathy have helped to create this mess. We did not have our government stolen in a bloody coup, we have been handing control over it to corrupt incompetents willingly so that we can discuss Entertainment Tonight rather than guard the door against the wolves.

What makes you think a people who cannot even monitor and manage a very fine system of government can recreate a better one from scratch?? I hear all of these people insinuating that we should rise up against our government, but I hear NO PLAN for a better one. And, I do not expect one to be forthcoming. I think reactionary, emotional thinking is what has gotten us into this position, I do not see how on Earth anyone can reasonably assume more of the same will get us out of it.

[edit on 24-9-2008 by Illusionsaregrander]

i dis-agree on both counts.

in the first place, the fundamental basics required for a functioning democracy are in place, so as a tool it is fine. now who the democracy works for, if you follow me, is entirely up to the people.

at the moment, realistically, all we can be sure of is that the government of the US seems to be working in the interest of the rich, however, i believe that this is probably not because of some elite cabal bent on domination. it is much more reasonable, i think, to imagine that it is because there is a clear link between the ability to spend money on an election and the ability to win it.

people in the US, and in the west generally, have decided that it is perfectly logical to vote for a person based on an image. thats why mccain is running with a woman, that's why obama is running with an old guy. that is, of course, if they vote at all, which most don't. american idle is likely to have a voter turn out greater than your average congressional election.

so basically, if you want to win an election you need to be in with the spenders.

then at non-election times, these big spenders think having the ear of the politicians is important enough to hire people to stay in washington for no other reason than to draw attention to their issues. day in and day out, 90% of the issues raised to politicians are the issues of the rich. it can hardly be surprising if they then spend 90% of their time working on the issues of the rich, especially when they're 90% responsible for re-election.

in the second place, the people believe you are a terrorist if the media says so, the last ten years should have taught you that.

[edit on 24-9-2008 by pieman]

Originally posted by Woman on the moon
depends on what you see as a violent way in overthrowing the government.
Will you go to the white house and congress and start shooting randomly at people?
Or will you gain control over strategic points in the entire US , (blocking in-and export, power plants etc) and push the government on its knee's?

That is a topic for another post, and one that I think is better kept offline

And what about the day after the government has been overthrown, how will you re-unite all the American citizens again or should every state become a seperate entity?

How will you ensure a better - democratic - live?

I think the vast majority would want to return to some semblance of normal life. It would require many to take on the tasks of cooperation and charity, but these are things the average American excels at.

I did at one point post a thread on what people would want to see in the constitution to make is stronger and ensure individual liberty and limit the likelihood of political corruption. It can be found here

Originally posted by Illusionsaregrander
There is nothing wrong with our "Form of Government." The structure is sound. It is like a good car, loaded up with horrible drivers.

If by structure you mean the Constitution and Bill of Rights, then yes, the structure is sound. But to follow your car analogy, what we have today is equivalent to owning a well tuned classic, while driving a dilapidated gas guzzling SUV. Just because you have the good one, if you aren't using it, it ain't doing anyone a lick of good.

Just look at all the executive orders, acts and codes created by the government that have set in place the ability to, if not already taken away, the rights of the people.

Since we are going with analogies, let me put it this way. The USA has become an old building falling apart and infested do to lack of care and upkeep. The people need to buy it back, refurb the thing, and add modern conveniences that will ensure the building lasts longer (fire and burglary protection, etc.)

Originally posted by Wolf321

It is the fault of the people for getting in this mess. I do disagree that the system still works though. If it did, we would have seen some change within the last 10 years, IMO.

This form of government was never set up with the intent that people would ignore it and spend more time making a "My Space" page than guarding their freedom and liberty. It is silly to assume that the government of the people, by the people and for the people can work without.....the people.

It was not designed to be ignored and willfully handed over to management by criminals. WE decided to do that, and we can still decide to undo it lawfully. That does mean we have to be more involved, and we cannot walk around in a media induced haze, but it can be done. Peacefully, democratically, legally.

Originally posted by Wolf321
It isn't treason when you are supporting and defending the Constitution as well as the principles of liberty.

Maybe you do not realize that overthrowing the government means overthrowing the structure of that government, which, in the US means the Constitution as well.

o·ver·throw (vr-thr)
tr.v. o·ver·threw (-thr), o·ver·thrown (-thrn), o·ver·throw·ing, o·ver·throws
1. To throw over; overturn.
2. To bring about the downfall or destruction of, especially by force or concerted action: a plot to overthrow the government.
3. Sports To throw an object over and beyond (an intended mark): The infielder overthrew first base.
n. (vr-thr)
1. An instance of overthrowing, especially one that results in downfall or destruction.
2. Sports The throwing of a ball over and beyond a target, especially in baseball.
Synonyms: overthrow, overturn, subvert, topple, upset
These verbs mean to cause the downfall, destruction, abolition, or undoing of: overthrow an empire; overturn existing institutions; subverting civil order; toppled the government; upset all our plans.

We do not have a King or Queen here. We do not have a dictator. Are we to overthrow ourselves? Or the Constitution? I say the first is foolishness, and the second is treason.

Originally posted by Wolf321
When those in charge disregard the Constitution and the will of the people, it is they who are guilty of treason.

Then they need to be charged with treason. Within this system of government. We can TAKE BACK the form of government we already have. We do not need violent overthrow, we need sustained, and concerted action within the system, by the people. We need to take responsibility for our own destiny, rather than simply handing it over to the unsavory and then ignoring it and then crying when, (surprise surprise) the foxes we have put into the hen house eat the hens.

Originally posted by Illusionsaregrander
Maybe you do not realize that overthrowing the government means overthrowing the structure of that government, which, in the US means the Constitution as well.

If the people running the government are not following or worse, slowly eliminating the constitution, then how can their overthrow be deemed treason to the constitution and what America is?

Then they need to be charged with treason. Within this system of government. We can TAKE BACK the form of government we already have. We do not need violent overthrow, we need sustained, and concerted action within the system, by the people.

You have a lot of faith in a system that those who should be brought up on charges have altered and tailored to fit their needs and desires. Not to mention, as you have already stated, people are too content to continue focusing on My Space, as long as there semblance of life remains somewhat intact. Plus, the system the real traitors are running, is specifically intent on trying to keep people ignorant and dependent.

[edit on 24-9-2008 by Wolf321]

is there nothing to do then besides armed revolt?

reply to post by pieman


IMO, based upon the information I am aware of, I see no other way to regain the liberties guaranteed by the constitution, as well as set in place the means by which power is less likely to be abused.

The options are:

1) Do nothing and accept the way things are.

2) Protest, and attempt to vote a 'different breed' of politician into office, hoping that they are different and not more of the same.

3) Bring down the people ruining the government

4) Leave the country.

For a long time now, many of us have done the first and second. I don't really consider the fourth. Which leaves the obvious.

reply to post by Wolf321


Have we yet tried and failed to arrange a trial for treason? Or are we waiting for the treasonous to try themselves. I envision Hell freezing over before that happens.

We have not stood up to our leaders legally, concertedly, loudly, and persistently.

We really have been too busy watching TV, chatting online, buying iPods, and generally screwing around.

Until we make every effort, real, concerted effort, to change things within the law, then any talk of use of force is not only treasonous, but foolish chatter. If you cannot get people to stand up and do the right thing in sufficient number to change things peacefully, what chance do you have of getting enough people to lay their lives and livelihoods on the line against an incredibly powerful military force?

This isnt the 1700's you know, when the guns held by the populace and the guns held by the armies were equivalent. We dont have local sources of fuel, or food sufficient to feed whole cities, etc. They could starve us out in very short order. You have not thought this through strategically at all. What do you see happening? A group of ten with pistols going to the White House and bringing the whole thing down in a day?

If anything YOU would cause the downfall of the Constitution with an ill thought out doomed to failure plan that would give the traitors in leadership positions the exact excuse they needed to stage a coup and REALLY topple our government.

The Media are allmost solely responsible for downplaying and ignoring peacefull protests inside the US of A.

When 10's of thousands gather to show to their goverment and to the world that they would like positive changes, they only portray a very select couple of photos' of people who do not adhere to the norm and marginalize it for instance, never taking an airial shot of the mass of people attending.

And when one person goes bananas over it and raises Hell they portray him as a terrorist, using him as an excuse to really focus their attention inwards.. so they have an excuse to 'deal with domestic terrorism'

The Internet is vital to put things in a global perspective, to share proof of large peacefull demonstrations with the world watching, in case they want to go heavyhanded.

That's why I'm fearing for the future of the Internet, but that's another topic.

Originally posted by Illusionsaregrander
...what chance do you have of getting enough people to lay their lives and livelihoods on the line against an incredibly powerful military force?

When people feel they have no rights or that they are being intently prevented from life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, people step up.

This isnt the 1700's you know, when the guns held by the populace and the guns held by the armies were equivalent. We dont have local sources of fuel, or food sufficient to feed whole cities, etc.

Exactly, it is that way by design of those who have corrupted and chiseled away the constitution. Does the government desire, encourage and ensure the people are independent or dependent?

You have not thought this through strategically at all. What do you see happening? A group of ten with pistols going to the White House and bringing the whole thing down in a day?

Clearly not, based upon the imbalance of power between the government and the people, tactics are a whole other matter. Also, depending on the nature of attacks, as well as the targets, the people might not feel that sorry for the attacks on the government.

Hi There,

Ok. So the citizenry overthrow the government using armed force, you cannot seriously believe that other self-interested groups are not going to seek domination over others? You cannot seriously think the nation is going to go back to living peacefully whilst gangs are maurauding around taking everything and anything they'll kill to have. Overthrowing a government with force will lead to long-term anarchy and greater violence as disparate groups fight for control. Take a look back to the French Revolution and how that descended into anarchy and atrocities. How are you going to switch it off? Take a look at Iraq and the removal of the controlling party that maintained a sembalance of order...that country sank into lawlessness and self-decimation - with not a little help from occupying invasion forces.

If you are going to overthrow a incumbent government, you are going to need a replacement government immediately, and one that will be accepted and recognised by all surviving nationals. This is why the right to bear arms in contemporary America is outmoded and redundant, especially so when used as a (interpretated) 'right' to protect oneself from rogue government. Armed citizens will not be allowed to overthrow anything...your military will see to that. A military coup sympathetic to the people's protection is the only way it will work. Your generals and admirals need to stand up for the people they are supposed to protect. They will need to disarm, disband and, (if necessary) imprison paramilitary groups of private companies such as Blackwater, et al.

Your military will need political advice and executive counsel from politicians with the foresight and know how to re-establish the country back to its founding principles. Without this political group, the aims of the coup will fail, and the people will be left facing a military dictatorship. Adhoc and haphazard uprising must rightly be discouraged, even unto being utterly crushed. Use the system that was created by the Founders...and you'll totally succeed. Any other way and your country descends into hell!

Originally posted by elysiumfire
This is why the right to bear arms in contemporary America is outmoded and redundant, especially so when used as a (interpretated) 'right' to protect oneself from rogue government. Armed citizens will not be allowed to overthrow anything...your military will see to that.

I agree with most of what you have said, but not that.

The right for citizens to bear arms IS in our Constitution. I do NOT feel it is outmoded and redundant.

I do not feel it is ever right for citizens of the US to attempt to overthrow our government. BUT...if the government should ever fall in a coup, or should we be occupied by some other hostile force, I want the right to be armed when and if it should ever happen.

Unlike some people, in some countries, I KNOW I am going to die. I do not think death is so great a tragedy. To me, the greater tragedy would be living in constant fear of either dying or being hurt. If my government were ever overthrown, I want to have my little guns so that I can die fighting on my feet for the country I love.

In that sort of a scenario, my success or failure would not depend on my ability to WIN the fight, but instead would depend on my willingness to die for something I believe in and fight for it even if the odds of winning looked bleak.

It is far better to die on your feet than to live on your knees. In my humble opinion.

[edit on 25-9-2008 by Illusionsaregrander]

Hi There,

Illusions...:

The right for citizens to bear arms IS in our Constitution. I do NOT feel it is outmoded and redundant.

and...

if the government should ever fall in a coup, or should we be occupied by some other hostile force, I want the right to be armed when and if it should ever happen.

Not wishing to be pedantic with you, but you will note the parentheses enclosing the word 'interpretated' in the clause following the statement you quote of me. I was not making a qualified observation, but a discernment on the paradox between the times of the 'right's' writing, and that of today.
As for the second quote, I would suggest that in any of those situations one would not be 'bearing arms' due to having a 'right' to do so, but because the 'bearing of arms' was required. The 'right' itself would not enter the equation, you would (naturally) fight to protect one's country...you would do so with or without a 'right'.

Best wishes

Originally posted by elysiumfire
As for the second quote, I would suggest that in any of those situations one would not be 'bearing arms' due to having a 'right' to do so, but because the 'bearing of arms' was required. The 'right' itself would not enter the equation, you would (naturally) fight to protect one's country...you would do so with or without a 'right'.

Best wishes

Your earlier points in this post are noted. However, it is because I have the right to bear arms before this sort of scenario that I would have arms and ammunition on hand when or if something like this occurred.

If for instance, in a country where firearms are banned, such a scenario occurred, where do you think you are going to get them? Do you suppose the other side will be handing them out to ensure it is a fair fight? Or do you suppose there are just bunkers sitting about with a "break glass in case of emergency" policy so that your populace could be quickly armed? Do you think that your police or military has a policy that they are going to hand out arms to the citizens if and when you were to be attacked? Or do you realize that they cost a fair amount of money and time to manufacture in large numbers and that the day would be lost before you ever had access to them if they were not already at hand?

I understand that other people in other countries are somewhat horrified by our love of our weapons. I understand that there are those that would bubble wrap their entire country if they could so that no one got hurt ever. I think the majority of us in the US do not feel that way. Tragedies do occur, and we do feel badly when they do, but for most of us, it is still better than the alternative.

There are still wolves, and bears, and cougars, and wild dangerous creatures in the US and I think most of us like it that way. I think most of us are not of the mindset that everything dangerous should be done away with, exterminated, or banned. Freedom is dangerous sometimes. But its worth it.

Hi There,

Illusions...:

it is because I have the right to bear arms before this sort of scenario that I would have arms and ammunition on hand when or if something like this occurred.

He He! Ok.

But...

I understand that there are those that would bubble wrap their entire country if they could so that no one got hurt ever.

Why should the people of a country not wanting or requiring a right to bear arms, necessarily be seeking to 'bubble-wrap' their country because of such sentiment? Why should it be perceived in this manner? How about the cultural maturity and cohesiveness of their society in which they live disavows any requirement to bear 'private' arms?

I should think that we can all rationalise scenarios by which it would be prudent to have a weapon at home - just in case; but to be honest, out of all such rationalisations, I prefer the one (and only one) where a weapon need not be there. Britain is not a society that has made that preference a reality for me, but it has shown that its society has got along quite well for thousands of years without a citizenry privately armed. Of course, there are many reasons why, both for and against, but nevertheless, it has shown it can be opted for and lived under...and of course, having lived under it, I am naturally and culturally biased towards it. To each his culturally own...if other countries would leave them in peace to be so.

Best wishes

Originally posted by elysiumfire
Britain is not a society that has made that preference a reality for me, but it has shown that its society has got along quite well for thousands of years without a citizenry privately armed.

First of all, there were laws that required citizens to be armed in England within your thousands of years time frame.

www.geocities.com...

By the 14th century archery was so important to the British Empire that her King, Edward III issued a series of proclamations requiring all males over the age of 14 to own and practice regularly with a bow.

more on this here;

www.companionsofthelongbow.co.uk...


And quite a few of us here in America are here because of abuses by the ruling class perpetrated upon the underclass in Britain. Many Americans came from Ireland, England and Scotland. You can't school us on their history, for many of us, it is our history too. We share it. Those who stayed in that country are the ones who were least abused by the ruling class. Of course there is a difference in opinion between those who left and those who stayed. And, it is no surprise that the history of the UK you learn there is sweetened considerably from the history related to us by our families who actually suffered first the abuses there, and then were expelled from their own country, where they had deep roots, often longer standing relationships with the land than the foreign "nobility" responsible for their expulsion.

www.britishancestry.org...

There were many causes for emigration from England to America by this time. Most were social, many political, a few religious and a great number compulsory.

There is an order of James I dated 1603 concerning banishment of "rogues" to places "beyond the seas" and another dated 1637 against "the disorderly transporting His Majesties Subjects to Plantations within the parts of America", clearly implying that this was something which had been going on for a long time and on a scale large enough to cause concern.

My family in particular is Scots-Irish, and you will find little sympathy for the "kind and gentle English rule" theory with many of my ancestry.

The United Kingdom as it stands now has not been a "peaceful civilized" nation for thousands of years without an armed populace. What history books do you read? Are you really unaware of the warring back and forth between Scotland and England?

And, out side of war, just the general abuses of power against the poor by the nobility?

en.wikipedia.org...

en.wikipedia.org...

Ireland as a free nation would not even exist if it were not for citizens having fought for their country. And yes, many of them used arms.

Do you not think that the revolutions that swept the world left no impact on leaders in Europe? Do you really think they forgot what happens when a people with access to weapons does when it is pushed too far? Do you really think Britain is the country you wish to choose as a paragon of gentle treatment of its peoples? Just because since the revolutions the nobility there decided to change their ways rather than face the fate of many other monarchs in Europe at that time, do you really feel that is anything other than a strategic decision made to save their own necks?

And what on Earth makes you think this oh-so-very-brief period of relative quiet and peace, which, I might add, was due in large part to the huge reduction in population pressure by the exporting of "excess" peoples from Europe and the British Isles to the Americas, and the great Wars, is going to last?

No group of "powerful" has ever managed its group of "powerless" with truly altruistic care and compassion. They do not show "care" unless it is in their clear best interests to do so. The British populace benefited from the violent revolutions in the Americas and in Europe, whether they raised a gun against their leaders or no. The rulers there saw the writing on the wall and gave concessions to the people before the conflict in that case, thats all. And if things were to ever turn in a direction that indicated to the powerful that it was in their best interests to clean house yet again, I can assure you they would. Certainly, disarming the populace, placing cameras everywhere, and training its people in placidity and obedience will make it far easier for them to do so.

Not only are guns banned from private ownership but there are calls to ban swords, and knives over a certain length, whats next? A ban on rocks?

news.bbc.co.uk...

And in the US, our homicide rate while higher than in Britain is certainly not the worst in the world by any stretch, as this graph from the UN for 2000 indicates;

www.data360.org...

And this article from 2001 doesnt paint a picture of a utopia either;

www.worldnetdaily.com...

The International Crime Victims Survey, conducted by Leiden University in Holland, found that England and Wales ranked second overall in violent crime among industrialized nations.

Twenty-six percent of English citizens -- roughly one-quarter of the population -- have been victimized by violent crime. Australia led the list with more than 30 percent of its population victimized.

The United States didn't even make the "top 10" list of industrialized nations whose citizens were victimized by crime.

Maybe our higher murder rate, but lower victimization rate reflect the fact that criminals attempting to perpetrate violence upon the innocent sometimes get killed while doing so?

In any event, even without banning guns, or having cameras everywhere, crime rates in the US are dropping.

en.wikipedia.org...

At least as significantly as they are dropping in the UK.

www.parliament.uk...

There has been no strong correlation between the banning of guns and implementation of cameras with the drop in crime in the UK. In fact, seeing as how the time frame is so similar to the US drop in the crime rate, it is entirely possible that there is a third factor at play in both countries, unrelated to gun laws at all.

Only time will tell whether or not banning guns was in the long term interests of the citizens of the UK to be disarmed.

If there was a coup and with all of my guns and you and everyone else with theirs, who is going to be shooting at who. Won't things be as distorted as they are now or more so. With all of the misinformation, speculative opinions, bigotry,paranoia and distorted perceptions of patriotism, the out come would make the wholesale slaughter witnessed during the French Revolution look like a Sunday school picnic in comparison. I am not sure that most people are really sure who their enemy really is, but they all know in their heart that they want to kill someone. The way things are right now a person can be killed because they choose to wear the wrong color shirt. How will we choose sides?

reply to post by hypervigilant


Thats a very good point, civil wars are often ferociously violent. And, they often act as "excuses" for other sorts of violence to occur, including religious, racial, and ethic violence generally unrelated to the original political issue.

Which is why I personally would never want to see an attempt to overthrow the government by force. I think it is the single most foolish thing any one could possibly propose at this point.

If there were a coup, you are right, it would be a horrible bloody, confused mess, much like the one we have created in Iraq.

In a case like that, you are right, it is hard to know who is on what side. I am always on the side of my Constitution, however. How the rest of it would sort out, I am not sure. Lets hope Americans wake up from their little la-la land daze and get active in their political system so that we never have to find out. Thats what I push for and encourage. Participation in the system, and more than just every 4 years.

Hi There,

Illusions:

...there were laws that required citizens to be armed in England within your thousands of years time frame.

I'm sorry, but you don't get away that easy. We have to draw a distinction between the decree of a king, and the issue of 'right' to bear arms. The two are quite diametric in their reasons, and never in the history of Britain has there been decreed or issued a 'right' for the citizenry to bear arms for the sole purpose of the 'people' to protect themselves from king or government. As far as I am aware, the decree held within America's Constitution for the 'right' for the 'people' to bear arms (note: not the 'individual'), is the first time that such a 'right' was enacted in any country. Equally, there is a lot of controversy surrounding the interpretation of the statement 'right of the people' as to what it actually edifies.

I know a court judge in America (not personally of course) whom established during a court case that the 'right' of the 'people' did constitutute the 'right' to the 'individual'. There may be other cases that I am not aware of bearing similar judgements.

The king's decree was simply that he may draw a ready-trained army out of the citizenry in order to fight other nations and rebellions. No king that I am aware of has ever decreed a right to the people to protect themselves from their own monarch...I doubt he would last long as a king.

Those who stayed in that country are the ones who were least abused by the ruling class.

Oh you think so. I beg to differ...and of course, I would not dream of attempting to beguile you of the accuracy of your historical knowledge on my own country...what would I know, I was simply born, bred, and live there. The abuses of the so-called ruling class did not stop because people upped and left their mother country to head for the shining beacon of the 'new' country to establish a life away from the abuses. Let us not forget, that when the migrants established a foothold in the 'new' country, the first thing they did (after many years of peaceful trading) was to abuse the native population out of their traditional land spaces.

...there is a difference in opinion between those who left and those who stayed. And, it is no surprise that the history of the UK you learn there is sweetened considerably from the history related to us by our families who actually suffered first the abuses there, and then were expelled from their own country, where they had deep roots, often longer standing relationships with the land than the foreign "nobility" responsible for their expulsion.

How do you arrive at this assumption? Have you weighed the historical perspective, or are you simply assuming that something conspiratorial has been inserted into the historical record to deny the British a 'true' account of their own history. That somehow, the present British people are bereft of historical accuracy simply because the 'ruling' class opts to keep them in the dark about it? I have to say that your statements are coming across as being incredibly naive (historically at least), and if left unchallenged would continue an error-filled perspective of the rightness of their accuracy. However, I am open to your continued perspective as long as you back it up with evidence that supports it, do not rely on self-evidential perspectives, which I feel is what you are doing. It is leading you into drawing conclusions of error.

My family in particular is Scots-Irish, and you will find little sympathy for the "kind and gentle English rule" theory with many of my ancestry.

I too am Irish/Scottish, and here in the 'mother' country, the 'English' rule is not primarily English in its makeup, but British, changed and amended over time to account for contemporary settings and individual national character. There are nationalistic elements that cannot or will not allow history to rest peacefully, and abuse the memory of it by perpetuating the hate and disatisfaction in modern times. The painful times of history evident in the growth of nations, should lead us (if we can accept the vast difference between adolescence and maturity) into peaceful futures. Nationalism is merely the colic in the belly of a nation's history.

The United Kingdom as it stands now has not been a "peaceful civilized" nation for thousands of years without an armed populace. What history books do you read? Are you really unaware of the warring back and forth between Scotland and England?

I never suggested that it was. However, those thousands of years experience has enabled the United Kingdom to peacefully co-exist for centuries. Notwithstanding the 'troubles' in Northern Ireland, but even there, the citizenry was ever-hopeful for peace. I personally believe that NI should be repatriated with Southern Ireland to make it (politically) a whole nation. I do not live there, so I cannot speak for those people, but I can share in their hope. By the way, when was the last war between England and Scotland? The time that has since passed should speak volumes as to the cohesiveness of the British society.

There has been no strong correlation between the banning of guns and implementation of cameras with the drop in crime in the UK. In fact, seeing as how the time frame is so similar to the US drop in the crime rate, it is entirely possible that there is a third factor at play in both countries, unrelated to gun laws at all.

I agree. The law in Britain forbidding the possession of personal firearms and the implementation of cameras does not correlate, because the two are effectively mutually disclusive to the crime rate. The third factor of which you speak (and here I applaud your perception), is down to socio-economic factors. Perhaps the following link might prove edifying for you.

www.guardian.co.uk...

Best wishes

[edit on 26/9/08 by elysiumfire]