Every freedom. You’re giving the government a green light to do whatever they want to you. Two pure examples of this is China and Russia. How do you think tyrannical regimes come along? By taking away your ability to defend yourself. This has been shown in history multiple times.
Yes, every country with gun laws has turned into a dictatorship. Such is how things go when your freedom to have an assault rifle for defense is restricted. France, Spain, Australia, Norway, Sweden, etc. all currently have totalitarian governments suppressing their citizens more than the USA. Without a gun, every freedom is lost.
Do you think private individuals should also be able to own tanks, ground to air missiles, fighter jets, aircraft carriers and nukes? Why stop at rifles? What do you think rifles will do against a fighter jet?
If you think the people should be able to violently overthrow the government, then the people need to have appropriate armament for something like that. Yet i dont see many people advocating for the right to have tanks.
If more guns means more democracy, why all the places that have tons of guns are so undemocratic? The only exception to this is Switzerland but there people dont actually have guns. Technically they have guns but they have no ammo and their guns are locked and arent allowed to openly carry rifles around.
Everything has a price. And the price for your unrealistic “the government should be afraid of the people because the people have guns” position is the dead children. It’s the every time someone gets angry over something, they have a weapon that can easily end the life of someone else. Do you honestly trust the general public with that power?
Russians absolutely have guns. And their laws aren’t very strict. And you seriously think the majority of developed countries where gun laws are stricter than the US’s are in imminent danger of tyranny?
Sheesh. Tyranny absolutely doesn’t care about guns, and even appreciates them in some ways. Because before things are bad enough that government weaponry (which citizens can never hope to match if the government is serious enough) is used to enforce it, militias of extremists will absolutely start the process of turning the country to shit. And will not prevent actual tyrannical behaviour by the government.
Proud Boys standing at polling stations with military weapons to intimidate voters for “safety”. Extremist anti-abortion nutheads enforcing their point of view regardless of laws or basic logic. Police murdering citizens for minor offenses or unfounded suspicions, where a gun on the citizen’s person couldn’t possibly do anything but make the cops more afraid and more violent. (What you gonna do with your guns? Start a frickin’ war with the police? You know they’ll call for reinforcements and now have a perfectly valid reason to shoot, right?)
Those are all happening in the US. Guns aren’t helping with any of this tyrannical behaviour, and while I’m not willing to put my hand over the fire over this take, it would be reasonable to consider whether the popularity of gun laws and lax gun regulation have made things worse.
SIEGEL: So far from being a pro-privacy quotation, if anything, it’s a pro-taxation and pro-defense spending quotation.
WITTES: It is a quotation that defends the authority of a legislature to govern in the interests of collective security. It means, in context, not quite the opposite of what it’s almost always quoted as saying but much closer to the opposite than to the thing that people think it means.
Now which is a more real risk to the collective security of Americans, daily mass shootings or some fantasy where the government is “coming to take muh guns” and you end up living in some hills fighting a guerrilla fight against a military made up of your fellow nationals?
Gee, idk, should we ask the kids who survived Sandy Hook how they feel about it? (They’re old enough to vote now.)
Okay, so what’s your idea? You’re going to give up your freedoms for some temporary safety?
What “freedoms” would they be giving up, exactly? The freedom to become a school shooter?
Every freedom. You’re giving the government a green light to do whatever they want to you. Two pure examples of this is China and Russia. How do you think tyrannical regimes come along? By taking away your ability to defend yourself. This has been shown in history multiple times.
Yes, every country with gun laws has turned into a dictatorship. Such is how things go when your freedom to have an assault rifle for defense is restricted. France, Spain, Australia, Norway, Sweden, etc. all currently have totalitarian governments suppressing their citizens more than the USA. Without a gun, every freedom is lost.
/s (obviously)
Do you think private individuals should also be able to own tanks, ground to air missiles, fighter jets, aircraft carriers and nukes? Why stop at rifles? What do you think rifles will do against a fighter jet?
If you think the people should be able to violently overthrow the government, then the people need to have appropriate armament for something like that. Yet i dont see many people advocating for the right to have tanks.
If more guns means more democracy, why all the places that have tons of guns are so undemocratic? The only exception to this is Switzerland but there people dont actually have guns. Technically they have guns but they have no ammo and their guns are locked and arent allowed to openly carry rifles around.
Everything has a price. And the price for your unrealistic “the government should be afraid of the people because the people have guns” position is the dead children. It’s the every time someone gets angry over something, they have a weapon that can easily end the life of someone else. Do you honestly trust the general public with that power?
Animals I’ve seen on my property: law enforcement, moose, elk, bison, cow, brown bear, black bear, wolf, wild dog
Number of times law enforcement has engaged me for existing while brown since I began to open carry: 0
Bonus: boomers, MAGA, and neolibs are all afraid to engage.
They’ll take my rifle and pistol when they pry them from my cold, dead hands.
Russians absolutely have guns. And their laws aren’t very strict. And you seriously think the majority of developed countries where gun laws are stricter than the US’s are in imminent danger of tyranny?
Sheesh. Tyranny absolutely doesn’t care about guns, and even appreciates them in some ways. Because before things are bad enough that government weaponry (which citizens can never hope to match if the government is serious enough) is used to enforce it, militias of extremists will absolutely start the process of turning the country to shit. And will not prevent actual tyrannical behaviour by the government.
Proud Boys standing at polling stations with military weapons to intimidate voters for “safety”. Extremist anti-abortion nutheads enforcing their point of view regardless of laws or basic logic. Police murdering citizens for minor offenses or unfounded suspicions, where a gun on the citizen’s person couldn’t possibly do anything but make the cops more afraid and more violent. (What you gonna do with your guns? Start a frickin’ war with the police? You know they’ll call for reinforcements and now have a perfectly valid reason to shoot, right?)
Those are all happening in the US. Guns aren’t helping with any of this tyrannical behaviour, and while I’m not willing to put my hand over the fire over this take, it would be reasonable to consider whether the popularity of gun laws and lax gun regulation have made things worse.
You know what is being used right now to fight against the coup in Myanmar? Small arms…and it’s working.
A plane cannot patrol a street corner or kick in doors.
Soap
Ballet
We are here, between these two…pray it does not make it to the last
Jury
Cartridge
A response from a 2A’er with a “tard” suffix that illustrates my point. Thank you.
Nice, can’t even explain why you disagree. Thanks for proving my point.
What you have is shitty slogans and zero thought. You’re a trumpet for NRA propaganda and you’re too dumb to even realise it.
The whole “security for liberty” shit you’re referring to? Actually means the exact opposite of what you’re trying to say.
https://www.npr.org/2015/03/02/390245038/ben-franklins-famous-liberty-safety-quote-lost-its-context-in-21st-century
Now which is a more real risk to the collective security of Americans, daily mass shootings or some fantasy where the government is “coming to take muh guns” and you end up living in some hills fighting a guerrilla fight against a military made up of your fellow nationals?
Gee, idk, should we ask the kids who survived Sandy Hook how they feel about it? (They’re old enough to vote now.)