You get the point. Anyway America is no longer a young country; we are the oldest on earth
Your logic fails. Simply because they have had governmental reform, doesn't
mean that places -- like England -- haven't had a continuous national identity for centuries longer than the United States has existed as a nation, or had its current government. And in places like England, the old government was overthrown
at all, it was simply reformed into a constitutional monarchy that bears a remarkable resemblance to representative form of government. (And don't forget, parliament has existed for centuries before the US was around, it just wasn't as "primary" as it now is).
Anyway, more important... nothing
lasts forever. Whether tomorrow, or the day after, or a thousand years from now, something will have changed. When the US falls off its superpower pedestal -- and that day is inevitable, if only because others are busy trying
to build themselves up -- is open to debate, but not that its going to happen. Only question is, is it going to go away with a bang, a slow decline, or is everyone else simply going to catch up.
Here it is plain and simple, to my knowledge the US is the only nation that allows almosts alls its citizens to carry a fire arm if they want to. This means that the peolpe do control the gov't and the gov't has to answer to them. In most of these other nations the gov't can do what it wants and scwer the people. Also america is providing the most advances in technology that actully helps an entire nation. If China is truely so smart that they can not down are satillites and missles then why the hell don;t they do to twian like they do to tibet. Amerca in one way or another will remain a superpower.
People overestimate firearms. They make killing a lot easier (and, in fact, negated many of the advantages that made the rich "unnasailable" by the peasantry...) but now that they've reduced the need for years of training to hold your own in hand-to-hand, the dynamic has shifted.
I disagree with the argument, but it is true that "people kill people", not guns. Guns are a tool used to make it easier, quicker, surer, but if I want someone dead I can do it bare-handed, with a knife, with a shovel, a car, heck an aluminum soda can makes a great
knife if you use it right!
The only thing a gun does is create a situation wherein its possible to kill, at a distance, with a relatively limited amount of training. Soldiers spend years training how to fight on a battlefield, and thats
why they can't control the government. With very few exceptions, the armed forced are trained in combat, not "regime enforcement" -- they'd smash the very machinery they were trying to protect if it came down to it. (That said, they could of course smash the machinery any time they feel like it, and there is very
little anyone else could do to stop it, if
it came down to that)
Edit: Sorry to rant on, the firearms thing is one of my pet peeves. While I do support firearm controls, the arguments most people use just tick me off. The problem isn't that they make it possible to kill, or even that they make it easier to kill; its that they are way
to prone to stupid accidents causing accidental deaths. If you really want to "protect" yourself, don't invest in a gun -- invest in some training.