Debate For All

You cannot gloss over them, though. Those words would not be there if they had no purpose.
If the founding fathers thought:
"I know, let's prevent the government from ever removing the right to bear arms, so that we can never have despots ruling"
Surely they would have said (roughly):
"Every citizen has the right to bear arms as a preventative to despots"

But no, they called for a well regulated militia to protct the borders & the freedoms of the state.

wrath! wrath!

No, but as pointed out before, the availability of guns allows any incident to suddenly become very fatal. For example, we in Britain get our share of armed nutters wandering into schools trying to kill everybody. However, they are typically armed with knives, and so achieve very little carnage, if any.
As to the Swiss - this is a (true) story that you will all like.
The Swiss have guns in their house, as they are all effectively members of the army. Everybody has assault rifles or worse stashed in their cupboard. However, these guns are the property of the army. A Swiss man discovered that his wife was having an affair. He decided to kill her & her lover, so he went out and bought a handgun, surprised the cheating couple & shot them both. When questioned later as to why he bought a gun instead of using his assault rifle, he looked incredibly shocked, and pointed out that the assault rifle was government property, and not his to use as he liked.

*Ahem*
Actually, George III was your king, rather than an imposed despot. The early 'settlers' in America were colonists (and a few criminals) from Britain & Ireland. And as to his harsh tyranny, (see http://www.fun-online.sk/forum/viewtopi ... 35&start=0 ) colonists in America had far far far less to complain about that the average citizen back in Birmingham, or Manchester.

As to the intentions of the Formers of the Constitution... we can only guess from what they wrote... And subjective opinion comes in here. Americans are taught from the cradle that the Constitution allows for gun ownership - which causes bias. I had never really read the Constitution until this topic started, and therefore came forward with less bias in that sense, but I do have a bias in favour of no universal gun ownership. Nobody is ever without bias.

As a personal & irrelevant sidenote, I am always amused by the 'founders of the Constitution' - men who wrote that all men are equal, but owned slaves!
(all nations have examples of such behaviour... Britain more than most )

As to the whole 'race & culture' debate...
First up, we must tread carefully in case somebody somewhere shouts 'you're all racist'. Sad but true. I don't think the arguments yet have been, I doubt they will become so, as we all seem to be rational human beings who do not judge by appearances, but just a warning in any case.

Yes, much of the violent crime in America is (according to statistics) committed by Blacks/Hispanics. However, can you honestly say that this is because they have a culture of such things? How much violent crime goes on in Spain? How much violent crime do we see in Britain from the Afro/Carribean population?
Or is it more that the Black/Hispanic population have simply formed the lower class in America for a number of reasons (mostly a long streak of racist history, but America is not alone there) and have sunk into the 'crime' lifestyle familiar to any such subgroup in urban areas.
The fact that they are not 'white' is largely irrelevant compared to the fact that they are poor, and feel oppressed & like they have no other way to better themselves.
Obviously this is a simplification, and is mostly my view based upon observation. Feel free to quote facts at me that disprove me...

Oh, one final point, Grieg, the example of Afghanistan was given as a country that had a despotic government imposed upon an armed populace.
You could also cite most of the Middle East, and large areas of Africa.

 

Some times we have to agree to disagree. My final word on the subject, we aren't in the eighteenth century any more. Arguments based on militias defending against despots have been rendered obsolete by the passing of time. Arguments based on defending against crime have run head on into practical reality and come off second best.

But my personal bottom line is thus.

I am not an American. I do not live in America. It does not adversely affect me. Therefore it is not my problem. Therefore I don't really care.

It is an American problem that will only be solved by Americans

:smok:

 

Ricky wrote:

Again, without exhaustive scholarly investigation, to assume that you have divined the intent of the framers based on your interpretation of a single phrase (well regulated militia) is folly. Constitutional scholars have examined every word written by the people who wrote, debated, and signed the document. It is quite clear that they intended" the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed".
How do you interpret that clause? While liberally interpreting a peripheral, preliminary clause your entirely discount the plain meaning of the substance of the amendment i.e. "the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed". That clause seems rather clear does it not?
Please explain what it means if you are contending that the amendment permits that right to be infringed upon by the government?
As far as the wording one should understand that people of that era did not always speak and write as we do today. Some phrases seem somewhat obscure and we must then look to the debates over the language inserted and the writings of the people involved.

One musn't dodge the central issue. The mens rea lies in the person, not in the tool. The availabilty of more tools will not induce that evil intent where it doesn't exist and as you illustrate where it does exist people will find other means of carrying out their criminal intent.
Let's be clear, there is no doubt that they can more easily do greater damage with a firearm than with a knife but in our judgement that is a risk we will accept. A disarmed and helpless citizenry is not a risk we choose to accept.

Confirms my previous point. The gun was available to be used, he chose not to use it. The will of the individual dictated the outcome not the easy availabilty of a firearm.

There is no requirement that I'm aware of that a despot be a foreigner. Do you not think that it would have been desirable for a German to have forcibly deposed Hitler before he could commit the most heinous of his crimes? Some of the greatest despots imposed their harsh rule on their own citizens...see Hitler, Stalin, Mao for a few examples.
There is no need to mention the inclusion of criminals...criminals from a repressive regime might be dissidents only. What constitutes a criminal can vary at the whim of a despot. What Castro calls criminals I might consider men of high character and ideals. Do not try to imply as Brits do about Australia that America was a Britsih penal colony where common criminals were sent into exile.

Please spend some more time reading what the men who composed the document wrote and thought before jumping to conclusions about their intentions.

If you followed my suggestion in the previous comment you would be aware that they themselves were keenly aware of the irony and were philosophically opposed to slavery. They were however men after all and not Gods and they were subject to the times and the prejudices of the world in which they lived. I mention their awareness of the dichotomy only to point out that while they were unquestionably "wrong" to allow slavery to continue one minute longer, they were not intellectually dishonest and rationalizing. They saw slavery as a dying institution that was on the way out anyway and unfortunately allowed it to continue another 80 some odd years

Knowing that I'm not a racist it is not a charge I fear. It would be wrong to hide the data, the truth, out of fear of baseless charges.

Exactly, you make my point for me. Clearly it's not racial so what does that leave us?

Sorry, but that is Leftist poppycock. When blacks were truly oppressed in this country, in much earlier times, yet lacked the gang/drug/ culture that existed today the rate of violent crime was much less than today. The idea that poverty "causes" violent crime is as silly as the idea that guns "cause" crime. The mistake comes from a common source. The abandonment of the idea of personal responsibility. The adoption of the "victim" mentality. i.e. individuals are not responsible for their actions instead we can blame poverty or racist society ot inanimate objects like guns.

Please know that I mean no rancor in my attacks upon the views you express. It isn't personal and not meant to be insulting. I often fail in attempting to clearly express myself and sometimes my clumsy attempts are interpreted as persoanl attacks. They are not intended to be so.

I'm willing to consider the idea you are proposing however I'm not sure that we have enough facts to make a valid analogy.
Things we need to know:
How willing or unwilling were the majority of the people in allowing these regimes to come to power?
How armed were the citizens?
Aside from established terrorist groups and warlords do the people possess arms in these countries? I'm not convinced that they do.

 

In the unlikely event that someone attempts to enter my house to threaten the safety of my family I do not intend to come off send best, as it were.
Theories will be of no use if you find yourself facing an armed criminal.
Guns however can be quite useful in those situations. I consider it my duty to provide for the safety and security of my family. You, however will be dependent upon the state to protect you and yours. If you are willing to gamble that should the occasion arise they will be there when u most need them..well...Good luck.

The idea that despots and tyrannical regimes and wars are obsolete has been floated before. I seem to recall such ideas flourishing immediately before both world wars.

 

George III was no Mao, or Stalin, or Hitler. He was the king of the 13 colonies and therefore he was not an imposed despot at all; your people developed under his rule rather than the other way around. And as far as I know what the colonies rebelled against were infringements of their freedom from certain taxes and trade regulations, which is far from a repressive regime. Therefore the American Revolution does not in any way mean that armed citizens guarantee the absence of dictators. And again it fails to counter my point of the "rock-tiger reasoning".

What Ricky pointed out is that the cause for high crime rates among Black and Hispanic Americans is not racial since neither Spain nor other areas inhabited by Blacks are hotbeds of crime and violence (except for countries with post-colonial internal troubles). So why is the crime rate so high in these minorities in the US? Ricky's explanation is poverty, coupled with a lack of opportunity which leads to men taking more desperate measures to sustain themselves in the lifestyle their social group sees as normal. Here poverty can indeed be the cause for crime, and the individual's choice at a certain point has little to do with it; many individuals are unable to make reasonable decisions in many situations and therefore the old rationality and responsibility argument is really quite unrealistic. Only in a position of time and opportunity can man make sound choices, because such choices require an environment.

As to the point that guns themselves don't cause crime, that is definitely true. However in saying that you ignore the point made, which was not that guns cause crime but that guns make crime both easier and more lethal in any given case. I'd say this is pretty obvious; there are more guns, they are more widely available, more people are able to use them, so more people will. We are talking about fringes here but as long as gun ownership is fully legal these fringes are relatively large. And then we still haven't touched the cases where people unable to make sound reasonable judgments at all (mentally ill and more notably children) get their hands on a gun and use it, because their supervisors/parents had it lying around the house. The accidents this causes can be prevented almost entirely by gun legislation.

Up to this point in our new debate we have touched many of the disadvantages legal gun ownership brings or allegedly brings to a society, and they failed to convince anyone; however, apart from the highly dubious despot overthrowing argument, I haven't seen any merit being presented in public gun ownership except for people living in the vicinity of large wild animals. Could the "gun lobby" provide some positive arguments here? Note: "it's in the constitution" doesn't mean much to non-Americans, and I don't really see it as an argument since rights don't mean anything near duties.

As a side note to all this, Grieg, what's up with your continuous denying of any information coming from allegedly "Leftist" sources? Why is a leftist source any worse or better than a rightist source? Neither will ever be 100% accurate, and both have political axes to grind. Why is one worse than the other?

 

No problem, I enjoy a good debate, It widens knowledge all round.

But again, you (or rather the 'Constitutional scholars') have completely ignored the fact that those words exist. They are there. This is the very license for Universal gun ownership in the USA and people only seem to read half the sentance. To draw a parallel, the Medieval Catholic church did a similar thing to the Bible in order to preach the Crusade (among a host of other rather dodgy ideas). You can read the whole sentance, or none of the sentance, but half a sentance is worthless except as propaganda.
I know speech patterns change, but to the extent where the phrase 'a well regulated militia' should be ignored?
As somebody who spent 4 years at Uni studying the interpretation of source documents (which is quote fun, really ), I do have some small ability to look at a histoorical document and form an opinion on their meaning & relevance.

How is it a risk? I know that this is something many Americans take for granted (like GregP several pages back), but I just don't see the risk.

Pretty much. Which begs a question - why do you think that Americans are more disposed to choose to use guns agaisnt people?

You kinda missed my point, I think. George III was not a tyrannical despot, and the American settlers had more freedoms, less tax, etc etc than the average citizen in the British Isles. As for the criminals, I included them out of sheer pedantry, I'm afraid! I did not think that I was trying to imply anything, but simply stating where the colonists came from. I apologise if I gave a different impression.

Which conclusion did I jump to? I was pointing out that nowadays it is very hard for us to know what they were thinking because 230ish years of history, culture & propaganda gets in the way, for everybody.

I agree. I was simply undertaking Moderator duties to ensure that everybody was aware of any potential fallout here. Sadly in the modern world, Political Correctness all to often goes far too far...

Cultural/social issues? But define them. Why does America have them and nobody else? Well, to be fair, everywhere has or has had a 'gang' culture in the less affluent urban areas. Does access to guns make it worse?

In Afghanistan, I do not know about the opinions of the people. What I do know is that Every male owns a gun (at least, definately those outside urban areas). Whether it is an AK47 or a Lee Enfield from the days when Afghanistan was an enemy of the Raj, they are there.

I read all this in an article written by a journalist who was out in Afghanistan following up (of all bizarre stories) the idea that the '12th tribe' of Israel is actually to be found in Afghanistan . And it is backed up by most sources - the experiences of the British Empire, the Soviets, the Taliban, etc.

However, this does raise a very interesting point. Most despotic regimes rise up when the nation sees them as the solution to a problem:

Nazi Germany
Communist Russia
The Taliban in Afghanistan (problem = the Soviet invasion)
Communist China (the corruption of the government)

are good examples.

How will gun ownership prevent such a takeover?


I can only think of one example where gun ownership might have helped - Vietnam. And that was a war, not simply 'coming to power'. However, the leadership of the south were so bloody corrupt & alienated the people so effectively that (as ever) the Communists came to be seen as a solution. Arguably.
The view that the majority of Vietnamise in their villages did not really mind provided the war left them alone is gaining favour these days.
But I'm waffling again, so I will stop writing & submit my post...
Edit - clearing up a few typos.

 

Roel wrote:

Indeed, he was no Hitler or Stalin. Those were examples of despots oppressing their own people rather than an external oppressor. On the issue of whether he was an imposed despot I most disagree. Was he elected? Did the people choose him?

Far from a repressive regime? Being a little bit free is like being a little bit pregnant. Men are either free to determine their own course or they are not. The people of America decided liberty and self determination was their God given right. Not a privilige to be granted or withheld at the whim of a monarch.

I don't maintain that it is a fact that can be proven by resorting to past examples. Nor can it be disproven by the same way. It is the way chosen by the people of the US. We aren't persuaded that it was a mistake.

I believe I was the one that denied that it was racia IMOl. I have never maintained differently.

There is no real poverty in the US. Opportunity abounds for all races, creed, and colors. These are facts, not leftist propaganda.

This brings us back to the poverty causes crime debate. It is really too
large and complex to be a sidenote within this thread.
As far as free will having nothing to do with it..people are compelled by external forces..poverty..racism..etc beyond their control we are back to the man as victim view which is an integral part of the povert cause crime
view.

Only in a position of time and opportunity can man make sound choices, because such choices require an environment.

Not true. I acknowledged that guns are easier to use and more lethal (generally speaking) than knives for instance.

Law abiding citizens will not turn into criminals because they have access to guns. Non law abiding citizens(criminals) will obtain guns illegally (as they do) and the only people without guns will be law abiding citizens.

Sorry but far too many debatable isssues are thrown out at once to permit a systematic addressing of each in a logical manner. The issue of accidents and gun safety is a different one than the Constitutional issue of private gun ownership which is different than the issue of linking private gun ownership to crime.
Suffice it to say that the perceived advantages of gun ownership we deem to outweigh the disadvantages, such as accidents i.e. we see utility in gun ownership. Just as driving a car or using electricty involves a calculated risk. You fail to see the utility inherent in gun ownership. I think you should be free to surrender your liberty to the state if that is what you choose. When someone attempts to surrender mine however we are going to have a problem

See my previous posts in regard to my responsibilty to provide for the safety and security of my family and the role of firearms (among other things) in that situation.

Lol..another huge area of debate opens up. In a nutshell (slang for oversimplification) Leftist (Marxist/ Lennist/ Socialist/ Communist/ collectivist) idelogy has always stressed that the end justifies the means and that it is acceptable to lie to the people if necessary to achive the ultimate end.

 

Sorry, I don´t buy that one.

Not a single nation on earth has equal opportunities for all people, neither the US nor any other nation. As for the question about poverty, that depends on how you define it. Here in Norway, poverty is defined by your annual income. For example : a family consisting of two adults and two children with a collective income less than 215000 Nkr ( US$ 33855 ) is defined as poor. They would usually still be able to afford decent living conditions, enough food and clothing, and perhaps even a car, and can of course not be compared to the poverty you´ll find in for example Africa.

I´m a bit bewildered by your use of the term 'leftist' by the way. Well, not that much perhaps. I´m perfectly aware that 'leftist' is a dirty word in the US and it could well be perceived as an insult or a degradation of the political beliefs of many of the members of this forum, especially when used in conjunction with the word 'propaganda' as above.

An oversimplification indeed. I have for some time suspected that the term 'Socialism' does not have the same meaning in the US as it has in Europe. Apart from 'Socialism' originally being a term that includes a vast range of political directions, it has in modern Europe become synonymous with the Social Democracy which I dare say reprecents some of the most open and honest goverments in the world.

 

Perfection does not exist in this world.
Perfectly equal opportunity? no.
Reasonably equal opportunity? yes.

If you have information regarding the lack of opportunity in the US I would be interesting in hearing it.

As far as poverty is concerned it is useful to do as you have done..i.e. to define your terms.
you state:

Yes..that is why I stated there is no real poverty in the US. Do you contend that people who can afford a car and enough food and clothing and decent living conditions are forced by this "povert" into crime? Beyond their control?

No insult was intended. Your stated belief that leftist is a "dirty word" in the US does not materally affect the definition of the word. It would be patronizing (if not insulting) for me to provide accepted definitions of the word from online dictionarys or other such sources. Likewise propaganda...it's use has been advocated by political thinkers and writers of all persuasions. I contend that it's acceptance as a legitimate tool has been most accepted by Leftists such as Marx..Lenin etc.

Feel free to call your governments Socialist if you choose. You can also call a cow, a fish if you choose. I will also feel free to decline to join you in that practice.

 

But what is 'reasonable equal opportunity' then ? How would you define it ?

I certainly see that, from for example a hungry African´s point of view, the Norwegian definition ( I´m not familiar with the American definition ) of poverty might be absurd. But it is still a problem, although not quite as serious, and it does increase the probability that the people inflicted will turn towards crime. Not forced beyond their control, but the human mind as well as the social structures are way too complex to expect that people with few resources and opportunities should stay away from crime because they are not forced to it. In some subcultures the easiest way, and often the only way, to make your fortune is by criminal means. They are simply trying to make money just like the average middle-class guy, but choose to do it by illegal means because they lack the opportunities the latter have. And there is of course people with few or no opportunities in the US, just as there are in every other part of the world. I might be a bit outdated on the topic, but what about for example the population of Appalachia where even malnutrition was a problem just a decade ago. And what about the black and hispanic subcultures ? Can you honestly say that they have all the opportunities that the middle-class have ?

Social Democracy is Socialism, although Socialism is not necessarily Social Democracy. Socialism is a collective term which includes political movements as diversified as Communism, Social Democracy and Anarchy. So I can to the best of my knowledge, and according to the definitions I learned at the Universty of Oslo, which are coherent with the definitions of Socialism I find in my lexicon, call the Social Democracies of Europe for Socialism.

 

Poverty is relative to your environment. This is why I posted that it was greatly determined by social standards around a person. What we call "poverty" in Western countries is nothing compared to the poverty known in Asia and Africa, but it is still poverty; likewise the poverty known in many parts of Asia and Africa is nothing compared to the poverty of earlier ages. It is a relative term. Now I acknowledge that this is wildly off topic and I will stop ranting about it, as just another thing on which we disagree. It was actually a side issue of definitions which was itself a side issue of a supposed explanation for crime amongst minorities in the US, does anyone follow this?

On the supposed propaganda justified by leftist political views, this is simply not true. Communism made extensive use of propaganda, but the worst user of public fooling through propaganda was Nazi Germany. It is in fact a known element more of fascism than of communism. Furthermore the fact that century-old political movements have justified the use of propaganda says nothing about today's leftist press feeling the same. Communists are very much a fringe group in any society of the contemporary world and they have their own subjective press, but the vast majority of "leftist" media is not "leftist" by your definition but progressive, as opposed to conservative. They are not even necessarily inclined to socialism, as even progressive liberalism is leftist. This is why I objected against your brushing them off the table entirely.

About George III, he was not a despot, he was a monarch, and you did not choose him because you don't choose kings. He was not imposed upon you since he or his predecessors were there already when you realized they were there, and before that time no one had ever really questioned the right of kings to rule. You consider him an unlawful despot only because of hindsight. Plus he was one of the least absolute of all monarchs of his age and so you were pretty much in the better part of the world when it came to government. This involves the fact that there really are stages and levels of freedom. But anyway this discussion is a side-issue from the case I was trying to make against the statement that there is reason to believe gun ownership can rid a people of a despotic government... This topic is hard.

All they do is evil or nothing, then. Case closed.

 

Skua wrote:

I'm willing to accept any definition that a "reasonable" mind would accept.
If one is not discriminated against due to ones race, gender, religion, ethnicity, income or social class that I would consider that reasonable equal opportunity. In this country, far from being discriminated against racial minorities and women are given special preferences (which is wrong but that is another issue) in hiring..in admissions to universities and in other areas such as granting of government contracts and so forth.

I think absurd is an apt word.

Lack of opportunity is not a problem thus no excuse. As you stated earlier, I don't buy it

Cultural differences. The people of Appalachia lived the way they have always lived. Geographically isolated, they were more primitive than mainstream Americans. They possessed trans portation and had the opportunity to leave those communities, if they wished. They had access to government assisstance if they wished to go to better schools.

Insofar as the black/Hispanic subcultures, that is how I began this debate...explaining why there is a much higher rate of violent crime in their communities. There is a tolerance within their culture for criminal behavior, for settling disputes by violent means. Much of it has nothing to do with attempting to acquire what they don't have. The rates of domestic violence, violent altercations between family members is much higher also.
Can I say that they have all the opportunities that the middle class have? I can say that they have more. Affirmative action programs encouraged and in some cases provided by the government provide opportunites to attend universities whose tuition rates place them beyond the means of most middle class people. Housing assistance comes in the form of supplements that permits one to purchase a house beyond the level of one's income as the government pays the majority of the monthly house note. Tax breaks means that no income tax is paid in fact some programs(earned income credits ) permit those who pay no taxes to receive tax refunds. Food assistance comes in the form food stamps, a type of voucher that is accepted at the grocery store..no cash required. These are a smattering of the programs available under the welfare state of the US..there are more.
Despite all this many are not interested in using the educational or small business loans made available to them but prefer to turn to criminal activities.
Most people(not in a position to have first hand knowledge) who speak of the lack of opportunity in America are simply repeating what they hear, most likely from our Leftist (by their own admission) news and entertainment media and have no clue about the actual facts.

 

And I don´t buy that lack of opportunity is not a problem. If you read through what I´ve written earlier, you´ll find that I have not claimed that the US is worse off in this regard. What I wont buy is that this problem does not exist in the US when it does so in every other part of the world.

I think we´re talking past eachother. Would I be right in assuming that what you´re talking about is the individual´s potential opportunities, which he/she may or may not take advantage of ? If that is the case, then I´m inclined to agree with you that, in principle at least, the groups mentioned above indeed has opportunities. It´s not that simple from a socio-psychological view, however, because it implies that the individual has the resources, knowledge and interest in taking advantage of his/hers potential opportunities. I think you are over-focusing on what you perceive as lack of interest within these groups and place too much emphasis on the individual´s own responsibility to take advantage of the opportunities they have. The individual is shaped by the social environment he/she inhabitates and will identify with other people within this environment. It takes a lot of personal resources to break out from this and take advantage of the opportunities you mention. My point is that some social environments, as for example the middle class, makes the opportunities more available and easier to take advantage of.

I´m sorry, but I have to ask. Do you have any media or university in the US who´s not 'leftist' ?

I also see that you have a tendency to write off arguments and sources as 'leftist', and therefore not reliable, which I think is unfontunate.

 

All a country can do is provide opportunities for its people, if they don't take them up its their problem - you can lead a horse to water and all that.......

 

I completely disagree, because : 1. When it becomes a social problem, which I believe we all can agree that some of the subcultures in the US are, then I have the opinion that it is the goverments responsibility to intervene. 2. I think it´s rather cynical to simply say that if the individual does not have the capacity to take advantage of the opportunities the goverment provides, then it´s his/hers problem. It´s not always lack of interest. A person can be interested and well motivated to take advantage of those opportunities, but that wont help him/her at all if he/she not also know how and/or have the resources to put his/her intentions into practise.

 

Here is one definition.

http://www.census.gov/hhes/poverty/thre ... esh04.html

 

I´m surprised, Ricky, I didn´t think you were so vengeful.
Personally I believe, as annoying it must be to have your house robbed, that no one deserve to be killed for stealing. There was a case here in Norway recently where a man, who had taken a shot at a thief driving away in his car and killed him, was sentenced to five years in prison. I think he got off easy for shooting a man in the back, even though the man had stolen his car.

And if all the victims have guns, then the criminals need guns.

Sorry for bringing up old posts like this btw. I intended to do some splitting as this thread is full of interesting topics.

 

This is an interesting question which Ricky asked Greg several months ago, but, as far as I can see, have not yet received an answer to.

I would in any case like to bring it up again. In the unlikely case that the US goverment should turn corrupt and despotical, how on earth are the population, no matter how well armed they are, expected to do anything about it ? This was possible in 1789, when the goverment had only a small standing army, but how can the mighty US Army of today be defeated ?

The goverment will be in power for as long as they has the support of the army.

 

But will the army fight the people from it's own country for a corrupt government?
You must take conditions into account here.

 

Indeed. But if the army sides with the people, why would the people need to be armed ?