An international law on firearms is inevitable. It is a prerequisite of globalsation. Here, ill explain in more detail what the law will cover.

A huge majority of developed countries will initially sign this law.

It describes constaints to manufacturers of firearms that they are only allowed to sell firearms to other registered countries.

These countries need to be aprooved by the Internations Firearms Council (IFC) so that we don't end up selling arms to oppressive governments (and the sort).

The International Firearms Monitoring Bureau (IFMB) is responsible in checking firstly that registered governments are not selling off weapons illegally and secondly, they investigate new potential governments to sign up to the law.

So basically, at first what will happen is manufacturers will be notified of this up-and-coming law and start to change markets. They will shift more to military, government and training and R&D.

There will be a huge reduction in turnover, so the manufactureres that have shifted better, will grab more of the market share and be initially more successful.

The whole of Europe will initially ratify this legislation as already a majority of their sales is to governments.

Then, in the US, some president will come along, with the support of a new band of politicians and sign up too.

Eventually, the political pressure from signed governments and their people will force troublesome manufacturers like Avtomat Kalashnikov, Israeli Industries etc. to sign up too. They will provide weapons for the poorer countries.

As i said, this is inevitably going to happen probably in no more than 100 years. What's that you say? "Americans are ruled by American laws"?

Our generation will be long dead by then, you don't have a say in the matter.

This is even more stillborn then Kyoto.

You realize it'll never work. It doesn't take alot to make guns. A simple firearm can be constructed in a garage. I could build a simple musket, and make the black powder, and cast the bullet, all in my back yard with materials I can buy virtually anywhere. Granted, 'smokeless' gunpowder (aka guncotton or nitrocellulose) takes a bit more work, but the only hard component is the nitric acid. which still isn't all that hard to get. Especially for a country...unless you plan on banning sales of nitric acid...which means you'll probably be banning fertilizer too, which could cause starvation....

So, it's unworkable because guns are too easy to make. Which is a good thing. An armed populace is a populace that has the power to unseat its government should it decide it need to. An unarmed citizen is not a citizen at all, he's a subject.

Nah, armed population doesn't make a difference. Don't underestimate the power of a totalitation government coming up, the ideology I mean. It never happens overnight. If the US were in the same socio-political scenario as nazi Germany was back in the days, it would have been worshipping the big H just as much as Germany did (or any other country for that matter). The fact that the population was/is armed would make a marginal difference at most.

I've only rarely heard of a succesful armed revolution by the people. Quite the contrary really, most succesful (ie, not leading to another sort of dictatorship/totalitarian regime) overthrows were (realtively) peaceful. At best an armed populace is a guarantee for a bloody and long-lasting civil war...

I agree with Ox here. Just look at the revolutions in Georgia and the Ukraine

Heh, i justed wanted to add the same thing Arathorn.

Imagine the people of Ukraine coming on the streets all carrying a gun .. it would have been inimaginable bloodshed.

Yup, and the government would have a legitimate reason to kill all protesters.

ok....so....

armed populace not helping in a civil war:
George
Ukraine.

successful revolutions/civil wars from an armed populace:
United States (both civil war and revolution)
France (revolution)
Germany (Nazism taking control)

successful civil wars/revolutions of an unarmed populace:
....

Sorry, not convinced. If you have an armed government and an unarmed populace, unless the government willingly steps down you're not going to win shit. Having an armed populace at least gives you the ability to win a fight.

Win a fight against the army? I wish you good luck. You seem to think that with an armed population, all of the population would revolt?
Looking at recent revolutions like in the Ukraine you see that the "bad" candidate has a lot of support from people too, armed people in your case. All I see in the end of that is a civil war.

sure, in any uprising, a civil war ensues. If you're lucky, most everyone goes with one side or the other and the damage is minimal (a la the French revolution). More often you end up with lots of fighting, death and destruction.

But having an armed populace still gives you a choice. If you're unarmed and your government is armed, what choice do you have? Throw rocks?

And, actually, in those situations it's rarely the government that's really in charge, it's the military. Just in some countries the military has been successfully convinced that the government controls them.

The military in belgium is so weak we could pwn them bare-handed. Ok, that's overexaggerated, but still. What are they gonna do, kill me with a minesweeper.

No, but seriously...the French Revolution lead to a huge festival of unrest and bloodshed, believe it or not. The revolution itself was succesful and relatively free of bloodshed, what came after was anything but. The Nazis taking control in Germany was much more of a socio-political event than antyhing else. By the time there was an armed command things were already done anyway.

The US civil war, sure. But how many ppl died in that? I have to admit that it lead to a stable government afterwards, though. I think it might have to do with the US being that big, ironic as it might sound. Less chances of population groups clashing etc., I mean.


Ukraine and Georgia aren't the only nations with succesful and (generally) non-violent overthrow of a regime. There's also the Czech Republic and the Velvet revolution, the Carnation revolution in Portugal, the revolution in Yugoslavia recently and the rise of the Solidarity movement in Poland.

Velvet revolution: http://archiv.radio.cz/history/history15.html
Carnation revolution: http://www.answers.com/topic/carnation-revolution

good reads


Thing is, actual 'revolutions' or overthrows have a very small chance to work. There are too many fresh wounds, usually. Most regime changes to a democratic order in history have a similarity: they happen gradually, under the surface. Either this is gradually adjusted in the law (many w-european countries knew this change), or it culminates in a huge movement of the people that often includes the military. Which can't be ignored and then take over control.


Erh...anyway. Just to say that an armed populace hardly is a pressure group. Look at the black emancipation in the US; in the long run the peaceful and gradual attempts had a lot more success than any paramilitary group like the black panthers. If anything they gave the movement a bad name.

If a governement goes bad, I'm afraid there's hardly anything that can (immedeately) be done. It would be pretty fatal to whip out your gun and fire at the first official you meet, too. Staying underground is always the first step. And then you can import guns when you want it if you need to...the resistance here didn't grow guns out of nowhere during WWII, you know.

There was a Belgian resistance? I bet you it was three farmers and a cow. :p

errr, anyway, fine, we have our own views. I maintain that an armed populace is superior to an unarmed one. You maintain otherwise. I suggest we meet at high noon tomorrow...I get a gun, you get nothing. That'll settle it.

In related news, tomorrow afternoon we're having Belgian burgers (made form 100% real Belgian!).

Anyway, having an armed populace wouldn't impede a peaceful governmental transition, imo. The peaceful ones usually happen because of massive popular support, in which the armed state of the populace wouldn't matter all that much. And a less-than-peaceful transition....I think the main reason for Israel's withdrawal from its occupied territories is a result of the armed palestinian populace, not because Ariel Sharon is a nice guy.

My sexiness will first blind and then disintegrate you!! You'd be surprised at how many Fritzes that resistance cow took out, she owned.

You've got a point about the Palestine-Israel conflict, but it also emphasizes one of mine: it works to an extent, but it also creates even more tension and conflict. The chances of successfully living side to side with someone are somewhat decreased when they shot your uncle or blew up your dog. Besides, the Palestines aren't really making much progress anyway. The irony is that by fighting for their land, they also are making it less likely that they will get it. When you want something from someone a lot more powerful, kissing their ass is usually better than pissing them off.

Also, on a slightly different note: there is a noticeable desecularization in everyday life in Iran, slowly but steadily. It's only a matter of time before the country in general will develop to something less of a theocracy, maybe even with a non-violent 'revolt'. If the US for example would decided to invade Iran, things would get fucked up 100 times worse than they were before, I'm sure. My point is; armed enforcement will create more new problems, even if it could lead to short-term solutions. In general I think we are all partly to 'blame' (it's also a good thing) that we fail to see beyond our own lifespan or generation. Change is always a slow process, and we tend to want to speed up thing dramatically as human beings. But the reality is that most changes, be it social or other, span over several generations.

Blah...so far for my preaching skillz. But anyway, you love guns, I don't, woooo!! We all rule.

I doubt the US has money for more big wars the coming ten years.

Youre missing the point. I am talking about wide-spread sale of factory made guns. I think its ok for some idiot to carry around his home-made gun around (lol, the images!) The idea is to make the SALE of weapons to unregistered governments, included all civilians ILLEGAL. So if some moron thinks its a clever idea to convert his garage into a productive arms factory, he'd better expect an anal raping from the police.

The main idea is to make peoples job of killing eachother, that bit more difficult.

Regarding the banter on the success of revoltions with relevance to the people having weapons, it is a question of proportional capacity and overall majority. If rebels have a close capacity in arms availabaility compared to government, then we have a fair fight. If there isnt, then the peoples only hope is to unite in majority in order to justify successful assassinations of opposition officials.

Nowadays, the military is organised in such an advanced way that an armed uprising in any country is futile. Proffessional soldiers make a career out of killing things.