4 ms·

But the problem with this is that a government can become completely totalitarian without disarming its subjects. Imagine the Soviet Union, but this time you're

But the problem with this is that a government can become completely totalitarian without disarming its subjects. Imagine the Soviet Union, but this time you're allowed to bear arms. Or even better, imagine the USA. Sure, you can bear arms, so in the letter you still can fight for your rights. But in practice, the second you try to pull that shit, a F117 Nighthawk is going to blow your terrorist ass to pieces. Practice is everything. Damn, the (letter of the) constitution of the Soviet Union actually gave their citizens the right to form political parties and run from office. You were provided by the government a party newspaper, headquarters... of course, if you tried to, you were hanged for treason.

mseebach 14y ago
And the problem with that is that it's not that simple as Iraq and Afghanistan has taught us. Guns, of course, are only part of the equation, but I'm pretty sure both wars would have looked a lot different had the population been generally unarmed. Also, the evacuation of the jews of nazi Germany would have looked a lot different had the jews been armed.
- tome 14y ago
  The Nazis overran nation states with mobilized armies. A small segment of the populace with guns would have been irrelevant.
  - Tangaroa 14y ago
    The French Resistance and Warsaw Uprising were not entirely irrelevant, even if they were defeated.
  - mseebach 14y ago
    It's one sentence, please read it. I'm talking about the evacuation of jews from Germany, not the general war effort, which was gainst countries with armies.
    - tome 14y ago
      I know. What I'm saying is that if armies couldn't stop Hitler from marching in, jews with weapons weren't going to stop Hitler from doing what he wanted to them either. [EDIT: anyway, I actually agree with your main point that a lot of private guns will be useful as a deterrent and in practice against professional armies]

mseebach 14y ago

And the problem with that is that it's not that simple as Iraq and Afghanistan has taught us. Guns, of course, are only part of the equation, but I'm pretty sure both wars would have looked a lot different had the population been generally unarmed. Also, the evacuation of the jews of nazi Germany would have looked a lot different had the jews been armed.

tome 14y ago
The Nazis overran nation states with mobilized armies. A small segment of the populace with guns would have been irrelevant.
- Tangaroa 14y ago
  The French Resistance and Warsaw Uprising were not entirely irrelevant, even if they were defeated.
- mseebach 14y ago
  It's one sentence, please read it. I'm talking about the evacuation of jews from Germany, not the general war effort, which was gainst countries with armies.
  - tome 14y ago
    I know. What I'm saying is that if armies couldn't stop Hitler from marching in, jews with weapons weren't going to stop Hitler from doing what he wanted to them either. [EDIT: anyway, I actually agree with your main point that a lot of private guns will be useful as a deterrent and in practice against professional armies]