Because they will have more forces here and the support for the revolution would be minimal.

Like I said before, the only revolt I can see happening in the United States anytime soon is a leftist revolution and it would not gain enough support to take over the government.

Minimal? Why? Wouldn't that depend on what the revolution was about?
What about getting the soldiers to shoot at their neighbors - don't you think that might be tough?

Because the American people have shown that do not like change if something does change, it is minimal.

Yes, shooting at American citizens would be a tough obstacle for the army but I don't believe that would allow a revolution to happen.

This is neither a new, nor an American, sentiment. This is exactly what they wrote in the Declaration of Independence, just before Queen Elizabeth II visited us in 1776:

Uh, Queen Elizabeth II?

We were safer when they were draftees. We were safer when they actually did have to shoot people instead of playing a video game that's connected to real weapons. There is real reasons to fear the military's move to autonomous or remote controled weapons systems, instructed by a guy with a mouse and screen.

Yeah, it makes sense that the people wouldn't revolt for a change - we're happy with (resigned to at least) the way things are. So, what if its the government making changes, changes the people don't like?

Yes. Don't you pay attention to the news:

Right over my head since I don't consider that crap news.

Last I heard people weren't happy with Bush's changes.

Two things about the American left- They really like the idea of government and the moment a Democratic President gets those same powers it will be all good. American rightists claim to be anti-gov but their reaction to this administration shows a love of powerful government as well. The urban riot examples are more like it, an explosion that is not part of the traditional political structure. I used to think the rural right might rise but as long as the gov is fascist they'll be good with it.

It'll probably be the poor. Just like the French and Russian revolutions.

I think most revolutionary movements would not be accepted by about hald of all American. Just like the Watts and LA riots, those whose interests are not served by the revolution would view the combatants as outlaws. As an example, if the government outlaws guns, only the pro-gun contingent will revolt, and they would be viewed as outlaws by everyone else. Please let's not drift into another gun thread arguement.

Bullshit. Go back and read how many said they didn't own a gun but strongly supported gun ownership along with all the constitutional guarantees.
I don't own a horse anymore, but I'd be very pissed off if the government tried to outlaw horses.

You missed the point - it's a fucking example. How about this. Remember all the pro-immigration demonstrations last year? How did you feel about those? Ready to take up weapons to support that cause?

Drift? You started the thread with it!

No matter how unlikely you consider an armed revolt to be - how could you possibly consider it so unlikely that it makes sense to disarm the populace? That's what I don't understand....

No, you missed the fucking point.
The point is, you can't see there are people that will support causes that don't affect them just because they believe in freedom. People that aren't so selfish that they say, well, that's not my problem, it doesn't affect me.

No, I won't support illegal aliens, but some Americans will, even though they aren't aliens themselves.
I will support horse owners, even though I'm am not one.