2 ms·
Thank you! Reading the Reuters article it's not really that they could defend themselves. The government just went "we have to be the bigger man or someone will
by oneloop 10y ago
Thank you! Reading the Reuters article it's not really that they could defend themselves. The government just went "we have to be the bigger man or someone will get hurt". They waited a couple of years and then arrested him when he wasn't expecting. Still, very interesting to see that some people eat up this fantasy idea that the point of guns is to protect yourself against the government.
- Nadya 10y ago>Still, very interesting to see that some people eat up this fantasy idea that the point of guns is to protect yourself against the government. Perhaps not in the US, but in other countries the step before mass killings and genocide began was the disarming of the population. People who have read history and wish to not repeat it are a bit more wary about disarming populations when a government asks for it. Now as I said in a recent post of mine - I'm not too worried about the US going all tyrannical and killing its population after a disarmament. But what about people who have migrated to the US from countries where that has happened in recent history? Would you tell them their lived experience and dead friends/family are just "a fantasy"? Would you expect them to trust you when you say "that won't happen this time"?