Duh! Tell me you’re joking. How are two and a half billion people going to leave and where are they going to go?
…which would then necessitate and would require a world-wide Right to Keep and Bear Arms that cannot be infringed…
No joke!!! Who the heck would want to stay in China, India, Pakistan, Indonesia, Haiti, Cuba?
they would walk, fly, boat, horse, whatever…and they would get out fast.
They will go to :
Canada
United States
England
Ireland
Italy
Switzerland
Saudi Arabia
South Africa
Isreal
New Zealand
Australia
France
Belgium
Scandinavia
Hawaii
Tahiti
Pago Pago
Alaska
Spain
Canary Islands
…there are lots of places in the world that the Indians and Chinese and Pakistanis will move into immediately
I think that what you are proposing is that the U.S. take over the world and use our system to govern it. My question to you(and the OP) is how do you stop the citizens of the world that are not from this country from getting voted in, taking over the government you want in place, and changing it via amendment to something they prefer? How long would your government last?
Isnt a world government what all the rich people want?
Isnt that what replacing the US dollar with a world currency is all about?
Isnt that what a world income tax is all about?
Isnt that what removal of all tariffs and “free trade” is all about?
Isnt that what “diversification”, all about?
Isnt that what the Trilateral commission, the World Bank, the IMF, the WTO, the UN, the Bildeburgers, New World Order, the Illuminati, etc all about? Why do they meet, in secrecy, at least twice a year?
I think a lot of rich and powerful people are trying to get a world government as soon as they can. Dont be suprised if a world government comes sooner rather than later. A lot of people are working overtime trying to install a world government.
Not very long.
I do not think any government, including a world government, would not get corrupt, tyranical, over taxing, over controlling. Neither did the Founding Fathers. That is why the last, the very last, fail-safe… is necessarily and forever: the Right to Bear Arms.
And how do you fix it so that this right isn’t amended away by the majority of the world who (it seems) doesn’t want it?
Don’t look under the bed!
Any politician that tries to revoke the Right to Bear Arms gets sent to the firing squad?
Ah, a dictatorship.
We would have to actually fight to keep it. Fight to the last, no surrender. It doesnt matter how many other people in the world dont like guns. I am keeping all my guns no matter what. Period. I am willing to die to keep my guns, are you willing to die trying to take them away from me?
If, in the end, **I **lose, then you all will lose.
Remember, there is no escape from a “1” world government, and there will never ever again be any refugees. Nobody can flee nor move away from a “1” world government. There is not going to be such a thing as “boat people” anymore. People will be extradited from everywhere and anywhere, there will be no appeal, no deportation, there will be no more sanctuaries, no more White Knights, no more Americans, to come to the rescue.
Another who believes in Our American Government…as long as it follows her dictates.
It is my belief that the primary purpose of government is to protect the rights and freedoms of people. Not everyone believes that, it doesn’t really matter, but as such, it’s the rights portion that I find the most troublesome
The problem with listing freedoms is then you’re left with interpretations of, if it’s not mentioned, is it not guaranteed, or since it’s not explicitly denied, is it allowed? Some rights that aren’t included here are privacy and property (which, IMO, includes "keep and bear arms). You obviously can’t enumerate everything, so you need a way to resolve conflicts as they arise. Just as the US Constitution couldn’t have foreseen the internet, we have to have a way to apply these concepts to future technologies that we simply cannot conceive yet.
As others mentioned, there’s a lot of guarantees that are lacking here. No protection against self incrimination, no guarantee to a public trial, no guarantee to a trial by jury. What is “cruel and unusual punishment”? I know we have a good idea of what it is, but it’s all based on case law for various countries, which will be different, and often conflicting. Does this allow corporal punishment? Capital punishment? Much too vague.
This also very much bothers me. People are being forced to be a part of this government. What if some set of countries doesn’t want to join this federation? Do they now have all the rights and responsibilities of citizens anyway? Will the government then be able to go into these countries and enforce violations? What about particular individuals who object?
I’m okay with revoking certain rights as part of punishment for crime as, inherently, every punishment is a violation of some set of rights. That said, there’s no provisions here for variations of offenses. Should all felonies be denied those rights forever and all non-felonies never be denied? That seems a little arbitrary to me.
This sounds an awful lot like conscription to me and it’s awfully vague. Will all enfranchised individuals be forced to serve in the Federal Service? What if they refuse for various reasons (eg, religion)? Hell, people are expected to serve on juries, but there’s not even a guarantee to that right.
And taxes… yet there’s no mention anywhere of how they are levied. Are they property taxes, income taxes, sales taxes…? Sure, taxes are likely a necessity for virtually any form of government–I’m not sold they’re meaningful for a world government–but they’re also inevitably one of the strongest methods for oppression and corruption, so any such methodologies need to be very explicit.
Two points here.
A lot of people would want to stay in China, India etc. It’s their home. Also, whatever the form of government in place, they are actually good places for humans to live - why do you think there are so many people there in the first place?
Second, how are the people of the countries you list going to react? By a quick count in my head the total population of all those counties is well under a billion. Are they going to be happy at twice that number suddenly descending on them? Is the world government going to tell them they must accept the incomers and then use force to make it stick? I can see the guns you are in favour of being used very quickly - by both sides.
-
I didnt say “all” of the people of Haiti, Bangledesh, Rwanda, china, india, Pakistan, and Indonesia will leave. Maybe just half of them will move, maybe a billion of them will migrate to europe, scandinavia, United States, Canada, the south seas, etc.
-
First of all, it doesnt matter how those people will react. Secondly, why would you think that anybody would not want all those people moving in? The billion people moving in will be fellow countrymen and getting a diverse neighborhood and having a billion chinese move in next door is one of the main advantages and benefits of a “1” world government. Why would you think anybody would object? If we get a world government, then it is because that is what the people want. The families moving in on your block or in your town will be fellow Earth citizens from the United States of Earth.
You’ve mentioned this several times and I really have to ask: Do you honestly, truthfully think that a group of otherwise civilised malcontents with hunting rifles have any chance against a modern military?
Every Belgian and French farmer had shotguns and hunting rifles in 1939/1940 and it didn’t do them much good against Panzers and the Wermacht.
Have you travelled much, or are you just incredibly naive/idealistic? Look at the animosity between different groups in the same country; people from the North/South of the US, just to pick an example you might understand.
The crazy is strong in this thread.
Back to the OP: Can I have the Minister of State job? In a one world government that doesn’t sound like too much of a tough gig.
**1. **Guns are not much good if you dont use them. You could have said the same thing about all the guns, tanks, rockets, artillary, etc that the French had that the French did not use. What you fail to see is that if 1 million civilians each shoot 1 soldier, than a million man army is taken out. If 100 million europeans had all shot back at the german army, then the American would not have needed to land at Normandy. The Vietnamese people shot back at the French and the US, and those 2 counteis both left. The Afgans shot back at the Soviets and the Soviet Union eventually left. So, the answer is: yes. A dead soldier is a dead soldier is a dead soldier no matter who it was that shot him. Revolutions DO!!! happen, did happen in the past when armed peoples were unhappy with their government and there is no other recourse. Read some world history, you will see several examples in world history of armed peoples overthrowing their rulers. It happened. It really did!
**2. ** If what you are saying is true, if there were any animosity between different peoples, then obviously, the people are not going to choose a “1” world government and your own premise makes your own statement irrelevant. The fact of the matter is, that if the people choose to have a “1” world government, then there WILL!!! be free movement of peoples all over the earth, massive moves of hundreds of millions of peoples. Scandinavia, England, Ireland, France, Canada, Australia, etc WILL!!! see hundreds of millions of chinese, Indonesians, Haitians, Pakistanis, Indians, Africans, etc moving in .
.
Susanann, you realize that if a world government comes to power your constitutional right to keep and bear arms will probably disappear because most of the rest of the world doesn’t see it your way. Will you obey the duly elected government? If this right to keep and bear arms isn’t constitutional any more, where does it come from?
From the same place as any and ALL other so called rights - they will be given or taken away at the whims of the Party and the Government. Since there will be only one givernment and only one global country, no one will even be able to “vote with their feet”.
I “predict” that such a government would very quickly become a monstrosity, far worse than anything w’eve ever seen before. With all the power consolidated in one place, there would be no rights, inalienable, inherent, or assumed. I would be willing to bet that even privileges, would only be for the “Party elite”.
Be careful what you wish for.