80,000,000 people....with guns

Egypt has a population of ~80 million. Imagine what Tahrir Square would look like with every protestor using bullets from guns and rifles, instead of throwing rocks or molotov cocktails.

The US has ~80 million seniors or retirees ages 55 and up. Imagine even a few thousand amassed in one place, with their guns and bullets, making demands.

The US has a population of ~ 300 million, with a huge number of armed citizens. I'm not sure of total numbers, but it's surely more than 80,000,000 people with guns.

Is this good, bad, or ugly?

That's actually the situation in Yemen (everyone has a Kalashnikov). The protests there are going peacefully and the president already gave in to a decent portion of the protesters' demands. The credible threat of force is usually sufficient to get a semi-desirable outcome.

But the US Constitution, while allowing ownership of guns as a right, doesn't require the use of guns to change power structures. Even peoples with a dictator can demand change without using guns.

Remind me how that's relevant to what I said? I honestly don't see what you're trying to say.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Loki

Remind me how that's relevant to what I said? I honestly don't see what you're trying to say.

---

It's a hypothetical exercise. Try it, you'll like it!

For example, if a Tiananmen Square event were to happen today, with several hundred thousand peaceful people holding daisies (and cell phones with cameras linked to the world watching) in the face of approaching tanks.....

It's less likely to happen in a country with armed citizenry, though the latter probably also increases the chance of a civil war in general. If you mean in general, it did happen in Uzbekistan a few years back. People whined for a year and moved on.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Loki

It's less likely to happen in a country with armed citizenry, though the latter probably also increases the chance of a civil war in general. If you mean in general, it did happen in Uzbekistan a few years back. People whined for a year and moved on.

---

No, I mean what's possible today, not what used to happen in the past.

In other words, is the most powerful current weapon the internet, the cell phone with cameras and video, streamed live across the globe to social networks? Does that make the concept of "arming citizens with guns" sound rather lame and.....last century?

(Though I do get a perverse chuckle thinking of 80 million seniors in their wheelchairs and bifocals holding shotguns instead of laptops :bulb: )

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andijan_massacre

What's that got to do with this, Loki? :confused:

That was a recent massacre where cameras and the internet didn't help.

Since that was in '05, it may be recent but not "up to date".

Ah, ok. Anything that happened before today is ancient history.

Perhaps I didn't create the thread very well, so I'll try again from a new angle.

Which weapon is currently more powerful for citizen uprisings or revolutions? The gun or the internet?

It depends on the political, military, and historical situation in the country.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Loki

It depends on the political, military, and historical situation in the country.

---

*sigh*

Politically, militarily, and historically.....not many would have said Egyptians could initiate a revolution like this, without the www and internet. One of the first things Mubarak did was shut down the internet and cell phones, as if that would be the end of it all. But information still leaked out, reverberated, and gained its own energy.

Guns or bullets do not have that kind of cumulative energy. So I'm thinking....it's more valuable and important to have the internet and social media, than having a gun.

What do you think?

Yes, it is more valuable to have the internet. Because the use of weapons becomes an entirely different animal if millions of viewers are looking on while you use it. Up till not so long ago Mubarak had all the guns in the country at his disposal, look at what good that did him.

Unlike what some people seem to think dictators can't survive if they lose their aura of omnipotence. And it's no fun if you never can travel abroad.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hazir

Yes, it is more valuable to have the internet. ....

---

I think so, too. Americans like to rally around our 2nd Amendment right to have guns, often citing that's our protection against a tyrannical government.

But in the 21st century, I think the internet might be a stronger weapon than any gun.

When Canada made it a national goal to provide broadband to all their citizens, many people laughed. When Finland declared access to the internet a civil right, many others rolled their eyes.

Well, I'd rather be guaranteed the right to the internet than owning a gun. A gun can't provide information, news, or shared opinions. Guns only work one way, outward and with destruction.

Actually, the US Constitution should be amended so that the government can't legally switch off the access of people to the internet.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GGT

I think so, too. Americans like to rally around our 2nd Amendment right to have guns, often citing that's our protection against a tyrannical government.

But in the 21st century, I think the internet might be a stronger weapon than any gun.

---

Quote:

---

Well, I'd rather be guaranteed the right to the internet than owning a gun.

---

For whatever reason it seems like you are intent on portraying these liberties are mutually exclusive, or diametrically opposed. I don't believe this to be the case. Personally I would rather maximize all available liberties. Increasing the breadth and depth of liberty is always the best way to combat tyranny and oppression.

Other things to note: Egyptians aren't completely disarmed. From what I have heard/been reading the civilian militias that have been popping up often have small arms. Civilian gun ownership may not be as common in Egypt as it is here, but it isn't completely unheard of.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hazir

Actually, the US Constitution should be amended so that the government can't legally switch off the access of people to the internet.

---

I think that's covered in our separation of powers between executive and legislative branches. No "one" person or entity has the ability to cut the cord. Our government doesn't "own" anything and hasn't entered into legal agreements with providers. They don't have the authority to tell all cable or satellite carriers to shut down.

At least I don't think so.....do they?

:eek:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Enoch the Red

For whatever reason it seems like you are intent on portraying these liberties are mutually exclusive, or diametrically opposed. I don't believe this to be the case. Personally I would rather maximize all available liberties. Increasing the breadth and depth of liberty is always the best way to combat tyranny and oppression.

Other things to note: Egyptians aren't completely disarmed. From what I have heard/been reading the civilian militias that have been popping up often have small arms. Civilian gun ownership may not be as common in Egypt as it is here, but it isn't completely unheard of.

---

Frankly, I was struck by the 80 million number. Their national population is just one of our demographics---80 million seniors.

Cairo may have had 'only' a few hundred thousand in Tahrir Square, but visually.... it was a sea of humanity. If they had all been armed with pistols, guns or rifles, instead of throwing rocks, I'm not convinced it would have made their point any better. Just more dead people.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hazir

Actually, the US Constitution should be amended so that the government can't legally switch off the access of people to the internet.

---

I'm pretty sure it can't do so right now. Fairly unexplored area, but it would be, among other things, a violation of due process. It might happen anyway in a crisis but. . . history will demonstrate that the government doesn't heed Constitutional barriers all that strongly in periods of crisis and only gets held accountable, if at all, years and years after the fact.

GGT:

Well, the Chinese government is a completely different ball-game.

* Egypt's government is weak, depends on American subsidies, has a conscript army, and the army itself is in charge. Egypt's government is "ruled" by an 80+ year-old man. Egypt, like the rest of the Arab world (and really almost all poor countries with enormous populations, poor health, relatively low education, and high unemployment), has a culture of complaining: complaining about Israel, the US, other Arabs, other religions, etc. "We didn't break the toy, you did when you tried to fix it!"

* In China, the bureaucracy is in charge, not the generals. China's top bureaucrats are beholden to no entity except themselves. In China, there is a culture of people doing what they are told to do. "Yes sir, we'll make the toy nice and pretty, just don't forget the moneys."


BUT!

I think you're right that if the population of China had guns in every home, then a lot of things would have to happen to have made that a reality. IE: the right to own guns, and many people having guns, is the result of many different factors in society and government. So, it wouldn't be a direct factor in forcing regime change, but I suppose it's somewhat correlated.