If people want to go down the road of what if, I'd gently suggest one not worry overly about world government and similar stuff just yet. Since a lot of the forum members are from Australia, I'd instead bring up the fact that one of our closest neighbours has more people enlisted in their armed forces than our armed forces has bullets (even if we laughably could get one kill per bullet - btw - in vietnam, it was something ridiculous like a few hundred thousand bullets for every confirmed kill.... so there they are with a population over 10 times out own, bugger all land to put them on and limited resources (which is why they'll be in west papua till there are no native population left.)

Then you have a media farce like Schapelle Corby who (whether she was innocent or guilty) makes us all look like we have no respect for other countries' laws and you've already started to win over the population to the idea, if it happens 30-50 years down the track. Please don't read that to think that I have anything against Indonesia. I'm simply saying that they'd have to be nuts if they didn't look at our population, our natural resources etc and realise how much better off their population could be, no different to how any other power would have to objectively assess all their friends and foes alike.

It's also one of the few inarguable 'positives' of freedom to bear arms. If you take away a populations means of self defence, you take away their right to it in the same action. That is to say, it'd be a hell of a lot harder for any nation to invade any other if every household had access to weapons. That is certainly being shown to be the case in the modern era of warfare. Having said that, of course there's plenty of negatives (and we are talking about human lives being lost in arguments for and against, there is no clear 'right' answer) with gun ownership too, at least for the minority of people who can't be trusted with or around them.