I obviously strongly disagree. If you're disarmed, you're barely better than a serf, you are most certainly "subject" to anything your armed government cares to now impose on you.

The truth may be ugly, but it does no one any good to pretend it doesn't exist.

The truth is neither ugly nor what you describe. Owning a gun, or even a bunch of guns, doesn't free you from the obligations that come with being a citizen of a nation or state.

At best (e.g. the land-use fee scammer Cliven Bundy situation in Nevada) you can delay enforcement of your obligations, but that doesn't make you "free," it just means you're reneging on your part of the citizenship bargain wherever you live.

Why that's considered a good thing, I have no idea. I certainly don't want to live in a might-makes-right world. I'd rather live in one consisting of a democratically-enacted rule of law.

As with centuries of civilizations before us - there are people who think their current government is non-corrupt, flawless, serving in the citizens' best interests at all times, and would never use force or brutality against a population to get what they want simply because they can against an unarmed population. That there are no outside forces capable of harming the population, even if the government comes to their defense, and we're "past all that" because we've lived in a blink-of-an-eye overall "peaceful" time. If you ignore all the wars going on as we speak.

Same people, different generation, different government.

I'm not sure what government you're talking about, but where I live (the U.S.), I think of the government as made up of people largely like me, and I'm neither wealthy nor well-connected.

Is it perfect? No, but nothing human is. Is it accessible? Oh yes. Is it something I, and everyone else, can work to be a part of and make better for all citizens? Of course. Do guns play any role at all in that work? Not a one. This--the discussion of the role of government in a democratic society--is a place for words and ideas, not weapons.

We are past the might-makes-right attitude of "I have guns so I'm OK". Now we talk.

First you should ask the presidents and politicians of the world to give up their guns and their security guards' guns. Then you might have a case to be made to the citizens.

While attempting to do that you might realize that you in fact do live in a world where might-makes-right and that the "democratically-enacted rule of law" paradise they sold you through your TV is just that.

You might also realize that you are wrong in thinking that the US government is made up largely of people like you, neither wealthy nor well-connected. This is the epitome of naivete, to think US politicians aren't wealthy and their careers aren't a game of who-knows-who.

I think you and I must live in very different worlds.

You said that the democratically-enacted rule of law "paraside" is something that TV sold me.

I don't own a TV set, and I spend the occasional evening and weekend being part of that democratic process. I engage with the other folkspeople in my community, and with our elected officials, some of whom I'm already on a first-name basis with. We talk about stuff, upcoming new regulations, the state of the city and neighborhoods.

I get that you feel pretty disempowered, but I can't really think that that's anything but your choice. I also get the sense that guns give you back that sense of being empowered, like "even if no one listens to me, at least I have a gun." That's not any meaningful sense of power, though, you're not going to persuade people to come around to your point of view with a gun. A gun in your pocket just doesn't give you any democratic legitimacy.

Which, it's funny, buying your way into a false sense of power, while relinquishing your own actual legitimate political power, that's the sad thing.

Oh, but I'm naive. Yeah, getting out there and engaging politically is hard. I'll just go buy my way into a meaningless sense of power, and stay at home instead. King of my castle, while democratic society passes me by.

On a small scale, guns allow your LEO to enforce the law of the land. The individual is not in a position to fight against the state and that's a good thing so long as the majority of the population is content and willing. However, if the majority of the population wishes to enact a new government - they'll need to have more power than the government. Rest assured - the government will fight back to remain in power. This is where the importance of an armed population comes from.

This justification is how the U.S argued for its independence - the "Right of Revolution" [0]. Which has since been codified as illegal in US law [1] yet remains protected under many state constitutions [2]. I'm not sure how the conflict is resolved.

On a larger scale - look at your countries' history - look at your current influence on the world - look at how many military bases you have around various points in the world. Your country has the largest military spending in the world by a large amount [3].

The U.S of A is the living, breathing definition of "might makes right". It won its independence by might-makes-right. It became a global superpower by might-makes-right. It enacts treaties and forces embargoes because might-makes-right. It aids in overthrowing foreign governments to prop up agreeable leaders for their own benefit - and they can do this because might-makes-right.

Rest assured that "might makes right" is how things are done to this day. It's just that nobody tries to overpower the USA, so you don't notice it as often as the countries the USA plows through.

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_of_revolution

[1] https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/2385

[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_of_revolution#Examples_a...

[3] http://pgpf.org/Chart-Archive/0053_defense-comparison

Practically speaking, even armed you're a subject. The government is free to impose its will on you any time it likes unless you're in the business of shooting police offices who pull you over.

> They're still citizens; that kind of talk is emotion-laden hyperbole, and has no place in this kind of discussion forum.

You're wrong, because—without hyperbole—historically the difference between a citizen and a slave has often been arms-bearing. The ceremony for manumission of a slave in some areas included a gift of a weapon.

Ah, yes, I'd forgotten that detail. The right/obligation to bear arms in defense of your polity has often been the dividing line between citizen and something less. And the Right to Keep and Bear Arms came up in several places in the Dred Scott decision.

Related, I was just reading something about the history of the fall of the Roman Republic, about a threshold where a class of men without significant economic means were allowed to enlist, which lead to them being dependent on their general's largess, and developing allegiance to him instead of the Republic.

Do you literally mean arms bearing, or do you mean the right to arm oneself?

There are also other categories than citizen/slave.