Yahoo Answers is shutting down on May 4th, 2021 (Eastern Time) and beginning April 20th, 2021 (Eastern Time) the Yahoo Answers website will be in read-only mode. There will be no changes to other Yahoo properties or services, or your Yahoo account. You can find more information about the Yahoo Answers shutdown and how to download your data on this help page.

Andrew
Lv 5
Andrew asked in Politics & GovernmentGovernment · 8 years ago

Many Americans seem worried that their government will attack them unless they are festooned with weapons Why?

Citizens of other countries don't worry about this. The UK and French governments, for instance, haven't fought their citizens in many hundreds of years. In fact they seem rather to think it's their business to protect them. (and when they did fight, centuries ago, the citizens won in both cases). Why do you believe your government is so different and untrustworthy?

Update:

@Captainamer. Your list of examples is amusing - I won't say stupid. Why? Every one of those governments except Nazi Germany was installed by an uprising of heavily armed citizens. The Nazi government was properly elected, and had the support of the majority of its citizens throughout. The Communist Russian government would have been close to majority support throughout its own existence. The present one certainly is. So none of them helps your case at all.

Would it be a good idea to learn some history?

Or perhaps you would like to show us a modern high-tech country where an armed citizenry successfully defeated its hostile government? That would at least help a little.

Update 2:

@Just David

You quote a number of people... mainly from a period of history not relevant to modern military realities. What you don't show us is any evidence that they were in fact right. Clearly my question is asking you to show exactly that.

Incidentally the British and French Prime Ministers would be interested to hear that they were "tyrants". Both have been called very many rude things, but not tyrants. Mainy because they quite clearly are not. When they legislate against private weapons they are properly carrying out the wishes of the overwhelming majority of their electorates. And therefore, by definition, are not tyrants.

5 Answers

Relevance
  • mark
    Lv 7
    8 years ago
    Favorite Answer

    Since the murder by firearms rate is 10 times that of other countries without guns the NRA cronies need to put whatever spin they need to justify their precious guns. The reality is nobody is worried about protecting themselves from the government and furthermore, a handgun would hardly be effective against mortar, tanks, planes, helicopters and grenade launchers. It's a ridiculous premise

  • 8 years ago

    Because every government that takes away the weapons of the free citizens is a tyranny, and besets their citizens.

    ”[The Constitution preserves] the advantage of being armed which Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation (where) the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms.”

    ~James Madison

    ”The best we can hope for concerning the people at large is that they be properly armed.”

    ~Alexander Hamilton

    ”The world is filled with violence. Because criminals carry guns, we decent law-abiding citizens should also have guns. Otherwise they will win and the decent people will lose.”

    ~James Earl Jones

    ”A free people ought not only to be armed and disciplined, but they should have sufficient arms and ammunition to maintain a status of independence from any who might attempt to abuse them, which would include their own government.”

    ~George Washington

    ”Self defense is a primary law of nature, which no subsequent law of society can abolish; the immediate gift of the Creator, obliges everyone … to resist the first approaches of tyranny.”

    ~Elbridge Gerry

    ”Certainly one of the chief guarantees of freedom under any government, no matter how popular and respected, is the right of citizens to keep and bear arms. … the right of citizens to bear arms is just one more guarantee against arbitrary government, and one more safeguard against a tyranny which now appears remote in America, but which historically has proved to be always possible.”

    ~Sen. Hubert Humphrey

  • 8 years ago

    Nazi Germany, China, Russia, Cambodia, Iran, Egypt just to name a few prove your argument is stupid. Checks and balances can't hurt. Besides it's my right to own firearms as guaranteed by the Second Amendment...

  • 8 years ago

    The only reason why the government doesn't attack, arrest, and imprison the masses is that they all pay their taxes. But there will be a day when millions of people refuse and the army will be called in.

    Prediction!!!!

  • How do you think about the answers? You can sign in to vote the answer.
  • 7 years ago

    IT's because of tha GEEEEEEEE OHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH PEEEEEAAAAAAHHHHHHHH!!!!! And all the smarmy political people who use smarmy political phrases

Still have questions? Get your answers by asking now.