blah the Prussian

Oh goddammit. These people are rebelling because they don't want their neighbors to face justice. The precedent of violent rebellion should not be set. Also, don't pull a reverse racism on me, if black people were doing this it would be just as bad.

Please, for the love of god, be serious here.

I can highly recommend "Look who's Back". It's about when Hitler from 1945 wakes up in modern day Germany and is hilarious.

If things have gotten so bad that it is needed to rebel presumably the military will be deployed. Also, the National Guard is still a thing, and I was joking about the Drones. Secondly, I am suggesting that the right to rebel against an unjust government means nothing in practice, because moral rights do not mean anything in practice. For example, the American rebels did not have the right to rebel against an unjust government in the war of independence. Basically, it needs to be said that you can't just rebel over any little thing. Thirdly, I am not suggesting bypassing the Constitution, I am suggesting changing the Second Amendment. While I would argue that Louis is heavily underrated, I was making a joke, not seriously suggesting an absolute monarchy. I favor a best of both worlds approach anyway that is too complicated to explain here. And the prosperity of America is due by no means to the fact that we have any sort of liberties. America could be a totalitarian hellhole and we still would have two enemies: a Mexico that was going through ridiculous internal issues, and a bunch of under armed Natives. Oh, and one more thing: that some Serb brat decided to murder the Heir to the Austrian throne, devastating Europe and giving the USA the chance to invest big. Also, please define a natural right. The government' job is to protect you, and it can certainly protect you from, for example, ISIS, better than you can. What would you do during a second 9-11, shoot the planes. No. The government's airport security is what is keeping you safe here. And if you really don't trust the government, I have news for you: America is a democracy. That means that you can vote in a government that you feel you can trust.

The only radical government within the EU is that of Viktor Orban in Hungary, and his regime is not posing an active threat to its citizens. Tienamen Square was a non violent protest because again, in this day and age, a superpower like China can decimate and rebels. The FSA is only getting somewhere because of Uncle Barack. And may I remind you that the PRC also came into power because they had guns. The same is true of the Soviets, the Khmer Rouge, and the Islamic Republic of Iran.

Regardless of what Mr. Franklin may have said, empowering the government is not bad, and at this stage guns are pointless. You have your AK-47. Good for you. The government has fucking drones. You're running around with your gun and you are blown up. If you make it past that, then the government has tanks. You can't win. Not to mention the fact that if the government has the support to do something like insert evil act here, those resisting would be in the minority. Less people would die if the people kept their heads down. Besides, belief that people have the right to rebel against a tyrannical government led to the most bloody war in US history. If you are rebelling, either you are wrong or things have gotten so bad that that right is rendered moot. The Constitution can be changed. It's not the bible. Personal freedom must end at a point, all we are arguing about is at what point is the most appropriate. I believe that that point is the point with the best freedom to dead people ratio. Also, slippery slope fallacy.

No, gun control was around before then. I honestly don't see how no gun control hurts radical parties. The Nazis, for example, used their Brownshirts to intimidate voters (yet another example of the government not having the balls to intervene) and imagine how much more intimidating they would have been with guns.

It could affect the nature reserve, which was already damaged due to the actions of the people that started this whole mess. And what is so bad about that?

The example doesn't work, because the rebellion itself was a reaction by the South to the threat of slavery being abolished. The point I was making is that the First Republic slid further and further down the slope of outright mob rule because no one had the balls to tell the mob "no." This culminated in Robespierre exploiting the fear of the mob to take power. And I'm pretty sure that most countries in Europe would disagree that gun control never works.

Te risk is that people will think that they can pull stuff like this. And occupying the building is disrupting the business of the government, which can in fact harm people. It would be an armed protest if they stood outside with guns, but they are not doing that.

America, my good man, never was under the rule of a divinely ordained despot, though I occasionally wish it was. I would pay good money to see Joseph II, Louis XIV, or Suileman the Magnificent whip Congress into shape. I would sooner trust any one of them with my country than a good 90% of the Presidential candidate list. Ah well. In any case, rebellion is only good if there is a just cause, and I think that any rational human being can agree that there is no just cause here. No one really knows why the militia is still there. Their leaders are part of a family with a track record of being whiny little bitches about everything the government does, though, so my guess would be that they were just looking for an excuse and they don't care what said excuse has to say.

Reform gained by armed uprising I would rather do without. We cannot set the precedent that force leads to you getting what you want. Ask Louis XVI and 40,000 other victims of the Terror how that worked out. What reforms can you seriously see passing because of this? Oh yeah, and to answer your question, the single biggest uprising in American history, the American Civil War.

Are you trying to justify this? And I am aware of the Battle of Athens, however it was against a government who was breaking the law, while here it is in defense of someone who broke the law and furthermore is perfectly fine with receiving his punishment. These people must be shut down.

If that is the case, the Feds are even more right in their approach to the situation.

I bet they're all republics. I would unfortunately not be able to tell you, as I have not seen nor heard tell of 21st century Boys.

They are fighting against the federal government. That is treason in spirit if not letter. It would be the best way to deal with it. The other option would be to storm the place, which would cause a ridiculous amount of deaths. Another, more hilarious, option, is to bring in a tank, wait for them to waste all their ammo, and taser them all. The terrorists do not have hostages here.

How is what they are doing not treason?

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/oregon-ranchers-occupy-national-wildlife-refuge_56888a61e4b0b958f65be382 So yeah. That just happened. Really, it's odd that such a hardcore monarchist as myself would be so absolutely livid at the actions of these traitors, but I am. These people need to be made an example of, fast. They are guilty of treason, no doubt about it. This is what happens when you get a culture of people thinking that blatant rebellion against authority is okay. So there you have it. Hopefully this at least adds more fuel to the gun control fire.

I think a Fire Emblem Total War would be awesome. There could be a different campaign for each continent, and quite frankly mages and wyvern units would be awesome to see. Also, Jugdral would go great with Crusader Kings, and I have this pet ambition to mod the Mad King's War into Hearts of Iron.

Monster. So far its better than Death Note. I also love the way it incorporates history into its story.

That early? In any case, the reason I mention Cixi was her utter opposition to any form of modernization and reform. If China had gotten out of its own way, the Qing would have dominated Asia, but it was almost entirely Cixi's fault that they didn't. Regarding your first point, we are quite simply not talking just about American history, because not everyone on this forum is American. For pretty much that entire period undue emphasis was put on the Europe of the Middle Ages and not enough emphasis on the Arab Caliphate and the Chinese. Although I will admit that we have a pass with Mesoamerican civilizations because they were pretty shitty at record keeping.

Okay, seriously, how were the Americans worse than the Arrow Cross? I challenge anyone who voted for America to justify that.

Sorry, misread. Same here though; not to gloat, but my parents had the originals on VHS, so I didn't have to see Lucas's add ones. RE it should have been a series, are you aware of the Clone Wars cartoon? It has a rough start, but it is far better than any of the prequels and is actually extremely good at times.

No one is saying that colonialism is at fault for all the worlds problems. It is, however, the reason why much of Africa is completely fucked up, and is also half of the reason why China suffered nearly two centuries of hardship(the other half of the responsibility belongs to the incompetence of Empress Dowager Cixi). Also, we are not talking about the study of American history, we are talking about world history, and there is indeed too great an emphasis placed on European history, especially European history between the fall of Rome and the age of exploration, during which time Europe with the exception of Byzantium was a backwater relative to the rest of Eurasia.

Ah, I see what you mean. I agree with that..