My message I was typing up was lost so I'm going to restart:(...
Firstly, the study that I referred to was probably the same one that you referenced. It sounds familiar, although it was by the CATO institute (maybe the Heritage Foundation is related to CATO? don't know).
Second, polices are what matter. That's what determines where a govt or a country, or a city, or whatever places on the econopolitical spectrum. When you say Singapore is very capitalistic but doesn't have the companies to show for it, it doesn't matter. Europe is considered more "socialist" yet has more "companies on the ground". Policies and ideals are what matter!
Thirdly, India can hardly be considered socialist. Some regions perhaps; some elements maybe; but overall, it is hardly socialist. Pick up any book on "socialism" and hardly any consider India to be socialist. It has some socialist ideals (mostly from people like Gandhi and others from the 40's and 50's) but it is definitely not socialist. If anything it is further away from socialism than many others. For instance, Canada is more "socialist" than India, even though Canada is running capitalism. The reason India cannot be considered socialist of any sort is because the workers NEVER gained power. The only time workers had any say was during the indepence when Gandhi relied on the workers. BUT that was only because those controlling the country were British (and thier India proxies). After the independence movement, all elements of socialism slowly but surely removed. You can tell this by the parties in power who only consider workers to be pawns (in contrast, look during indepence and pre-indepence). Needless to say, RIGHT NOW, India is hardly "socialist" due to the emergence of Hindu fundamentalism. Until the workers are emancipated, I, as well as most on the left, would not consider India to be "socialist".
Could it be, then, that this has more to do with pro-active governance than economic ideologies?
Of course, pro-environmental polices will help--regardless of system. However, economics play a MASSIVE role. Capitalism, for instance, is inherently anti-environmental. This is necessarily so because profit is placed ahead of the environment (among other things). All the capitalistic free-trade agreements being signed actually REDUCE environmental protections--not increase it. Only a free market worshipping capitalist would claim that capitalism actually helps the environment! Of course, this shouldn't be surprising given that nearly all (capitalist) economists count the cost to the environment as ZERO. Even when corporations are seen to help the environment, they are only doing it for public relations.
Socialism abhors grass-roots groups and other structures where the people can gain power without control and permission of the ruling elites.
Look at all the so-called socialist revolutions. You'll find that they were driven by the "grass-roots". Check the Cuban revolution, Russian revolution, and the Communist revolution. You'll find that these revolutions were INITIALLY supported by the general population.
Hence, they cannot be allowed: they are all banned in the countries that are most socialist.
They are banned once totalitarians or some dictator takes over. At that point, it is hardly socialism--rather it's totalitarianism.
You can't have totalitarianism without socialism.
This clearly shows your lack of understanding of econopolitical systems. Totalitarianism has nothing to do with socialism (since it doesn't have anything to do with economics). For instance, you can practice totalitarianism on top of capitalism (as Nazis did). You could run totalitarian system regardless of what happens in economics.
Microsoft is a result of free market capitalism. Don't expect capitalist governments to carry out anticapitalist actions unless it benefits them (i.e. some competiting lobby group pays them off; Netscape, Sun, and now Linux don't have enough money to "buy" the politicians).
On to drugs...
Whatever flawed govt control that will exist will be better than RIGHT NOW. Also, as I mentioned, corporations, as sleazy as they are, only consider violence as a last resort. I can't see too many (physical) wars of drugs, whereas this is a common thing nowadays... A free market run by monopolists and oligopolists is better than a black market run by drug lords/organized criminals...
Psh, I wish I could get drugs whenever I wanted...
Depending on your age, here are some options... if you are a teen, walk into your neighbourhood high school... if you are older, walk into a night club... and if all that fails, find the poorest neighbourhood in your area and go and stand on the road making sure you are seen as an outsider...
People on slashdot have neither a sense of humour nor a sense of sarcasm... I can't believe people mod things as flamebait and troll when it is blatantly obvious...
I didn't know illegal things were taxed. Even if they were, it's not as if the govt is collecting much moneyfrom it. The taxpayers probably declare ZERO for their illegal activities...
One more thing... if you are NOT in favour of legalization of drugs, what is your proposal? Are you supporting the status quo (and indirectly the "war" on drugs)? Or do you have another idea? I'm open to suggestions...
BTW, I hold a similar view with prostitution (it should be legalized). But I would want input from feminists because some of them consider prostitution (which mostly affects women) to be exploitation (similar to how capitalists exploit workers). If that is indeed true, then I wouldn't support prostitution.
Here's a leftist view... I don't have the saem view as liberatarians
Before legalization drugs, I would want a thorough study done, and I would only support it once the costs of legalization (i.e. increase in drug use) can be offset by govt control. In any case, I think I am leaning towards legalization...
The MAJOR downside is that this will increase drug use (since those that think illegal=morally bad, will all of a sudden start using drugs since they will view legal as morally good). The increase in usage is what I want studied so that I know what I'm getting into (if I support a pro-drug platform)...
The impact of legalization won't be as severe as you think. The main reason is because the "war" on drugs is a complete failure. Regardless of how you put it, a person that wants drugs can get it WHENEVER they want. If you don't believe that, you are living in a cave (i.e. not familiar with what's going on around you), or you just haven't thought about it. What all this means is that legalization won't impact those that really want drugs--they get it anyway.
The second reason is what makes me different from a liberatarian. Liberatarians want ZERO control of legalized drugs, while I want FULL govt control. By legalizing drugs, society (via the govt) can actually CONTROL it. Right now, the govt has no control whatsoever. Police (the military wing of the govt) might claim they control the drug trade but that is a complete lie! If you let corporations (or private businesses) run the drug trade, the govt can control them. This will ensure that quality of drugs are increased, you can monitor whether anyone is overcharging, minimize the spread of diseases, etc. Even seemingly unrelated things like homicides can be reduced (because corporations will only use violence as a last resort, whereas drug lords in the modern black market use any means). In fact, you can even funnel the money you make on drug taxes back towards the drug users so that they are taken care of.
Legalization of drugs should be considered... the only people who are against it are conservatives who still think the "war" on drugs is going well...
Stop posting as AC...not because I don't want you to post anonymously, but because AC's don't reply back. I don't want to type up a long post and get no reply. I don't care if you reply positively or negatively--I want some feedback. If anonymity is important, go ahead but if you are lazy, don't do it:)
The capitalist countries (the ones with the most free markets) have the best record on the environment. The countries that are the most socialist (Saddam's Iraq, Soviet-occupied Hungary, Red China) have the very worst records.
First of all, not many people with any knowledge of socialism would consider those countries as socialist. Even the enemies of Marxism do not consider Iraq to be socialist. Second, capitalist countries pollute far more than even your so-called "socialist" countries. Look at say CO2 emission from USSR vs USA over the last 50 years. Look at oil consumption. And so on.
Lastly, your clouded vision of capitalism seems not to leave your borders. The VAST majority of the planet is capitalist! Countries like Saudi Arabia (a close friend of USA incidentally) is far more capitalist than Canada! Yet it has no environmental policies. Similarly, the #1 capitalist country in the world is Singapore (read the latest studies by the capitalists themselves at the CATO institute). If you count all the capitalist countries, you'll find that they lack many environmental groups. In addition, the reason there are no environmental groups in your so-called "socialist" countries is because of totalitarianism--it has nothing to do with "socialism".
If you love the Earth, kiss a capitalist.
heh.. I love that slogan... maybe flying that banner will reveal how idiotic you guys really are...
I will GUARNTEE you that if ALL the parties spent similar amounts of money, and have equal access, the other parties will get way more than what they get now. Unfortunately, as long as the two main parties spend tens of millions, while all the other ones combined spend less than that, I am brainwashed and you are living in a utopia;)
Yeah but... the type of econopolitical system being practiced has a major impact. Life under a govt monopoly is different from a free-market corporate monopoly. Going back to your point, the prolbem is that the population has been brainwashed into thinking they are living in a utopia...
There is nothing stopping anyone from voting for other parties. It's just that the main 2 parties in USA have been brainwashing everyone... Winner takes all doesn't mean a thing if the winner doesn't benefit you--a lesson that Americans should be taught...
What do you expect from conservatives? They won't even consider anything that is remotely similar to socialism. Needless to say, this foundation seems to have been created by Ronald Regen. If Star Wars isn't the biggest waste in recent memory I don't know what is...
This is a great thing. It's about time that someone took responsibility for all the hazardous waste being produced... I don't see too many people revolting against this (except for a bunch of a capitalists who think the free market (i.e. no one) should pay for hte environment)...
Any method (wormholes, tachyons, "warp drive", etc) to reach a velocity higher than c is mathematically equivalent to a time machine. Unless you and Clark are secretly smarter than Einstein and Hawking, it can't be done.
Einstein isn't as smart as he seems:) Some of his key views such as a deterministic universe (as opposed to probabilisitic) are wrong.
I believe in time travel. FTL may not be possible; I don't believe that to be plausible method. However, things like worm holes and Tippler cylinders are quite "possible". There is nothing in science that says a worm hole cannot exist, or that a Tippler cylinder cannot be constructed (Hawking claims the latter isn't possible but isn't an impossibility).
I actually believe in time travel but FTL isn't it. I think the only way to time travel--if it's possible at all--is via warping spacetime with heavy gravity. Examples include worm holes and Tippler cylinders.
Breaking the speed of light is highly unlikely--possible impossible. Even if FTL were possible, I think you wouldn't be able to do it with (positive) mass. You may be able to do it with things we don't really know much about (such as dark matter or something).
Perhaps the tides are turning. Do I sense a general apathy with capitalism from the general population? Only time will tell... It's surprising how so many people from USA dislike capitalism--and USA is the flag-bearer of capitalism.
'Glorious Communist China Linux stomps the Evil Running-Dog M$'
I think you are late... that story already went by;)
'Working class techies must unionize to stop evil free-market profiteers'
I think this story was brought up in a conversation too (although it wasn't a news posting I don't think)...
Outright badmouthing of capitalism/free market in general for all woes
You do realize that you are living under capitalism, don't you? It is only sensible that people blame the system for what it is...
Smear(story) after smear against the very ideal that gave you the technology you use to smear it...
I just love how capitalists love to take credit for everything, including science and arts. HEre is a hint for you: science and arts will exist regardless of capitalism. The vast majority of advances is due to scientific achievements a hundread or 200 years ago.
socialist after socialist expounding the virutes of marx/kant/any other feel-good man-o-the-people leech...
I don't think there are many socialists on this board. I would say capitalists outnumber socialists by at least 50 to 1.
You are now an object of ridicule now.
If you can't take it, why are you here? I think you'll be much happier heading over to the CATO institute or the WTO or IMF. Fine institutions run by elites and their worshippers...
I just love how socialists always blame free market for everything:)
Why is it that a functioning system always runs into problems when capitalists get involved? Privatization does not work. Just look at healthcare, car insurance, electricity, etc. The only reason it SEEMS to work is because you guys are all short-term oriented and/or don't care about public welfare.
Capitalists always criticize socialism by claiming that is too utopian because people are greedy. Well, the same is true for free markets. Greed essentially means that free markets will result in monopolies and oligopolies. How much do you want to bet that there will be less than 5 ISPs in 25 years?
I bet, though, that far fewer "infidels" would die. You think that they attacked the WTC because of the financial costs? Dammage? What about the Cole? Was that attacked because the hole would take thousands to patch?
I think you missed my point... I said that they DON'T target economic stuff right now. Some people think they did when you look at WTC but that really wasn't the goal. Right now, Al-Qaida just seems to be interested in inflicting maximum damage and/or targetting symoblic buildings.
But the guns that are allowed under gun rights are usually weak, low-end ones. Guerillas would require more firewpower, which is probably forbidden by law (I'm not really familiar with weapons laws in any country though). Is there a country that allows people to own machine guns like AK-47 (#1 guerilla weapon)? Does even USA allow it?
Sniping could work although you would still be at a disadvantage. For instance, militaries can apparently detect people with their heat signatures. Not only do you have to camouflage yourself but also wear clothing that minimizes heat and stuff like that. Of course, guerillas still have a big advantage: they can hide within the population...
I think they would have been shocked with the concept of atheism/agnostism (ie. lack of God). They may not have been in favour of religion that much (especially given that the Church was corrupt and many Amerians actually fled Europe to get away from the Church) BUT I doubt they would entertain the thought that NO God exists...
Slashdot Mirror
My message I was typing up was lost so I'm going to restart :( ...
Firstly, the study that I referred to was probably the same one that you referenced. It sounds familiar, although it was by the CATO institute (maybe the Heritage Foundation is related to CATO? don't know).
Second, polices are what matter. That's what determines where a govt or a country, or a city, or whatever places on the econopolitical spectrum. When you say Singapore is very capitalistic but doesn't have the companies to show for it, it doesn't matter. Europe is considered more "socialist" yet has more "companies on the ground". Policies and ideals are what matter!
Thirdly, India can hardly be considered socialist. Some regions perhaps; some elements maybe; but overall, it is hardly socialist. Pick up any book on "socialism" and hardly any consider India to be socialist. It has some socialist ideals (mostly from people like Gandhi and others from the 40's and 50's) but it is definitely not socialist. If anything it is further away from socialism than many others. For instance, Canada is more "socialist" than India, even though Canada is running capitalism. The reason India cannot be considered socialist of any sort is because the workers NEVER gained power. The only time workers had any say was during the indepence when Gandhi relied on the workers. BUT that was only because those controlling the country were British (and thier India proxies). After the independence movement, all elements of socialism slowly but surely removed. You can tell this by the parties in power who only consider workers to be pawns (in contrast, look during indepence and pre-indepence). Needless to say, RIGHT NOW, India is hardly "socialist" due to the emergence of Hindu fundamentalism. Until the workers are emancipated, I, as well as most on the left, would not consider India to be "socialist".
Could it be, then, that this has more to do with pro-active governance than economic ideologies?
Of course, pro-environmental polices will help--regardless of system. However, economics play a MASSIVE role. Capitalism, for instance, is inherently anti-environmental. This is necessarily so because profit is placed ahead of the environment (among other things). All the capitalistic free-trade agreements being signed actually REDUCE environmental protections--not increase it. Only a free market worshipping capitalist would claim that capitalism actually helps the environment! Of course, this shouldn't be surprising given that nearly all (capitalist) economists count the cost to the environment as ZERO. Even when corporations are seen to help the environment, they are only doing it for public relations.
Sivaram Velauthapillai
The Ba'ath party is a socialist party.
This alone proves that you don't know what you are talking about... I suggest that you move to the Democratic Republic of Korea--a very fine country
Sivaram Velauthapillai
Socialism abhors grass-roots groups and other structures where the people can gain power without control and permission of the ruling elites.
Look at all the so-called socialist revolutions. You'll find that they were driven by the "grass-roots". Check the Cuban revolution, Russian revolution, and the Communist revolution. You'll find that these revolutions were INITIALLY supported by the general population.
Hence, they cannot be allowed: they are all banned in the countries that are most socialist.
They are banned once totalitarians or some dictator takes over. At that point, it is hardly socialism--rather it's totalitarianism.
You can't have totalitarianism without socialism.
This clearly shows your lack of understanding of econopolitical systems. Totalitarianism has nothing to do with socialism (since it doesn't have anything to do with economics). For instance, you can practice totalitarianism on top of capitalism (as Nazis did). You could run totalitarian system regardless of what happens in economics.
Sivaram Velauthapillai
Microsoft is a result of free market capitalism. Don't expect capitalist governments to carry out anticapitalist actions unless it benefits them (i.e. some competiting lobby group pays them off; Netscape, Sun, and now Linux don't have enough money to "buy" the politicians).
On to drugs...
Whatever flawed govt control that will exist will be better than RIGHT NOW. Also, as I mentioned, corporations, as sleazy as they are, only consider violence as a last resort. I can't see too many (physical) wars of drugs, whereas this is a common thing nowadays... A free market run by monopolists and oligopolists is better than a black market run by drug lords/organized criminals...
Sivaram Velauthapillai
Psh, I wish I could get drugs whenever I wanted...
Depending on your age, here are some options... if you are a teen, walk into your neighbourhood high school... if you are older, walk into a night club... and if all that fails, find the poorest neighbourhood in your area and go and stand on the road making sure you are seen as an outsider...
Sivaram Velauthapillai
How is the tax service going to determine how much illegal profits were generated?
Sivaram Velauthapillai
People on slashdot have neither a sense of humour nor a sense of sarcasm... I can't believe people mod things as flamebait and troll when it is blatantly obvious...
Sivaram Velauthapillai
I didn't know illegal things were taxed. Even if they were, it's not as if the govt is collecting much moneyfrom it. The taxpayers probably declare ZERO for their illegal activities...
Sivaram Velauthapillai
One more thing... if you are NOT in favour of legalization of drugs, what is your proposal? Are you supporting the status quo (and indirectly the "war" on drugs)? Or do you have another idea? I'm open to suggestions...
BTW, I hold a similar view with prostitution (it should be legalized). But I would want input from feminists because some of them consider prostitution (which mostly affects women) to be exploitation (similar to how capitalists exploit workers). If that is indeed true, then I wouldn't support prostitution.
Sivaram Velauthapillai
Here's a leftist view... I don't have the saem view as liberatarians
Before legalization drugs, I would want a thorough study done, and I would only support it once the costs of legalization (i.e. increase in drug use) can be offset by govt control. In any case, I think I am leaning towards legalization...
The MAJOR downside is that this will increase drug use (since those that think illegal=morally bad, will all of a sudden start using drugs since they will view legal as morally good). The increase in usage is what I want studied so that I know what I'm getting into (if I support a pro-drug platform)...
The impact of legalization won't be as severe as you think. The main reason is because the "war" on drugs is a complete failure. Regardless of how you put it, a person that wants drugs can get it WHENEVER they want. If you don't believe that, you are living in a cave (i.e. not familiar with what's going on around you), or you just haven't thought about it. What all this means is that legalization won't impact those that really want drugs--they get it anyway.
The second reason is what makes me different from a liberatarian. Liberatarians want ZERO control of legalized drugs, while I want FULL govt control. By legalizing drugs, society (via the govt) can actually CONTROL it. Right now, the govt has no control whatsoever. Police (the military wing of the govt) might claim they control the drug trade but that is a complete lie! If you let corporations (or private businesses) run the drug trade, the govt can control them. This will ensure that quality of drugs are increased, you can monitor whether anyone is overcharging, minimize the spread of diseases, etc. Even seemingly unrelated things like homicides can be reduced (because corporations will only use violence as a last resort, whereas drug lords in the modern black market use any means). In fact, you can even funnel the money you make on drug taxes back towards the drug users so that they are taken care of.
Legalization of drugs should be considered... the only people who are against it are conservatives who still think the "war" on drugs is going well...
Sivaram Velauthapillai
Stop posting as AC...not because I don't want you to post anonymously, but because AC's don't reply back. I don't want to type up a long post and get no reply. I don't care if you reply positively or negatively--I want some feedback. If anonymity is important, go ahead but if you are lazy, don't do it :)
The capitalist countries (the ones with the most free markets) have the best record on the environment. The countries that are the most socialist (Saddam's Iraq, Soviet-occupied Hungary, Red China) have the very worst records.
First of all, not many people with any knowledge of socialism would consider those countries as socialist. Even the enemies of Marxism do not consider Iraq to be socialist. Second, capitalist countries pollute far more than even your so-called "socialist" countries. Look at say CO2 emission from USSR vs USA over the last 50 years. Look at oil consumption. And so on.
Lastly, your clouded vision of capitalism seems not to leave your borders. The VAST majority of the planet is capitalist! Countries like Saudi Arabia (a close friend of USA incidentally) is far more capitalist than Canada! Yet it has no environmental policies. Similarly, the #1 capitalist country in the world is Singapore (read the latest studies by the capitalists themselves at the CATO institute). If you count all the capitalist countries, you'll find that they lack many environmental groups. In addition, the reason there are no environmental groups in your so-called "socialist" countries is because of totalitarianism--it has nothing to do with "socialism".
If you love the Earth, kiss a capitalist.
heh.. I love that slogan... maybe flying that banner will reveal how idiotic you guys really are...
Sivaram Velauthapillai
Nope... not related to him.. it's somewhat common but there are many different (although similar) spellings in English...
Sivaram Velauthapillai
I will GUARNTEE you that if ALL the parties spent similar amounts of money, and have equal access, the other parties will get way more than what they get now. Unfortunately, as long as the two main parties spend tens of millions, while all the other ones combined spend less than that, I am brainwashed and you are living in a utopia ;)
Sivaram Velauthapillai
Yeah but... the type of econopolitical system being practiced has a major impact. Life under a govt monopoly is different from a free-market corporate monopoly. Going back to your point, the prolbem is that the population has been brainwashed into thinking they are living in a utopia...
Sivaram Velauthapillai
There is nothing stopping anyone from voting for other parties. It's just that the main 2 parties in USA have been brainwashing everyone... Winner takes all doesn't mean a thing if the winner doesn't benefit you--a lesson that Americans should be taught...
Sivaram Velauthapillai
What do you expect from conservatives? They won't even consider anything that is remotely similar to socialism. Needless to say, this foundation seems to have been created by Ronald Regen. If Star Wars isn't the biggest waste in recent memory I don't know what is...
Sivaram Velauthapillai
This is a great thing. It's about time that someone took responsibility for all the hazardous waste being produced... I don't see too many people revolting against this (except for a bunch of a capitalists who think the free market (i.e. no one) should pay for hte environment)...
Sivaram Velauthapillai
Any method (wormholes, tachyons, "warp drive", etc) to reach a velocity higher than c is mathematically equivalent to a time machine. Unless you and Clark are secretly smarter than Einstein and Hawking, it can't be done.
:) Some of his key views such as a deterministic universe (as opposed to probabilisitic) are wrong.
Einstein isn't as smart as he seems
I believe in time travel. FTL may not be possible; I don't believe that to be plausible method. However, things like worm holes and Tippler cylinders are quite "possible". There is nothing in science that says a worm hole cannot exist, or that a Tippler cylinder cannot be constructed (Hawking claims the latter isn't possible but isn't an impossibility).
Sivaram Velauthapillai
Do you have to register? I don't really see anything on the website? Can someone give me a sample link? Thanks!
BTW, this is great--if it is as good as it sounds. This, along with other collaborative sites like wikipedia.org, will help a lot...
Sivaram Velauthapillai
I actually believe in time travel but FTL isn't it. I think the only way to time travel--if it's possible at all--is via warping spacetime with heavy gravity. Examples include worm holes and Tippler cylinders.
Breaking the speed of light is highly unlikely--possible impossible. Even if FTL were possible, I think you wouldn't be able to do it with (positive) mass. You may be able to do it with things we don't really know much about (such as dark matter or something).
Sivaram Velauthapillai
I've tried, slashdot...really i did...
;)
Perhaps the tides are turning. Do I sense a general apathy with capitalism from the general population? Only time will tell... It's surprising how so many people from USA dislike capitalism--and USA is the flag-bearer of capitalism.
'Glorious Communist China Linux stomps the Evil Running-Dog M$'
I think you are late... that story already went by
'Working class techies must unionize to stop evil free-market profiteers'
I think this story was brought up in a conversation too (although it wasn't a news posting I don't think)...
Outright badmouthing of capitalism/free market in general for all woes
You do realize that you are living under capitalism, don't you? It is only sensible that people blame the system for what it is...
Smear(story) after smear against the very ideal that gave you the technology you use to smear it...
I just love how capitalists love to take credit for everything, including science and arts. HEre is a hint for you: science and arts will exist regardless of capitalism. The vast majority of advances is due to scientific achievements a hundread or 200 years ago.
socialist after socialist expounding the virutes of marx/kant/any other feel-good man-o-the-people leech...
I don't think there are many socialists on this board. I would say capitalists outnumber socialists by at least 50 to 1.
You are now an object of ridicule now.
If you can't take it, why are you here? I think you'll be much happier heading over to the CATO institute or the WTO or IMF. Fine institutions run by elites and their worshippers...
Sivaram Velauthapillai
I just love how socialists always blame free market for everything :)
Why is it that a functioning system always runs into problems when capitalists get involved? Privatization does not work. Just look at healthcare, car insurance, electricity, etc. The only reason it SEEMS to work is because you guys are all short-term oriented and/or don't care about public welfare.
Capitalists always criticize socialism by claiming that is too utopian because people are greedy. Well, the same is true for free markets. Greed essentially means that free markets will result in monopolies and oligopolies. How much do you want to bet that there will be less than 5 ISPs in 25 years?
Sivaram Velauthapillai
I bet, though, that far fewer "infidels" would die. You think that they attacked the WTC because of the financial costs? Dammage? What about the Cole? Was that attacked because the hole would take thousands to patch?
I think you missed my point... I said that they DON'T target economic stuff right now. Some people think they did when you look at WTC but that really wasn't the goal. Right now, Al-Qaida just seems to be interested in inflicting maximum damage and/or targetting symoblic buildings.
Sivaram Velauthapillai
But the guns that are allowed under gun rights are usually weak, low-end ones. Guerillas would require more firewpower, which is probably forbidden by law (I'm not really familiar with weapons laws in any country though). Is there a country that allows people to own machine guns like AK-47 (#1 guerilla weapon)? Does even USA allow it?
Sniping could work although you would still be at a disadvantage. For instance, militaries can apparently detect people with their heat signatures. Not only do you have to camouflage yourself but also wear clothing that minimizes heat and stuff like that. Of course, guerillas still have a big advantage: they can hide within the population...
Sivaram Velauthapillai
I think they would have been shocked with the concept of atheism/agnostism (ie. lack of God). They may not have been in favour of religion that much (especially given that the Church was corrupt and many Amerians actually fled Europe to get away from the Church) BUT I doubt they would entertain the thought that NO God exists...
Sivaram Velauthapillai