3 ms·

> Personally, I can't understand why you care about how 'we' handle guns in our country. I don't, really. But it is frustrating watching, oh, I don't know, 95%

by tomkin 14y ago

> Personally, I can't understand why you care about how 'we' handle guns in our country. I don't, really. But it is frustrating watching, oh, I don't know, 95% of the developed world somehow getting by without guns while the US can't see past them. > What are they going to do? Do you know how much we (the US) spends on military compared to the rest of the world? It's really no wonder that the citizens of such a country (not to mention drones, elective wars, and the "right" of the President to kill without trial) prefer to be able to own guns (as many as we can). You're hope of defending yourself against government (i.e. drones - which can attack from the sky, no less), is infantile, to say the least. Explain how you, a member of HN, plan to de-weaponize your government with your pistol. > In other words, "What's wrong with having monarchies?" That's great rhetoric, except I'm not advocating for monarchies. That's a straw man argument, because I've not once advocated for such a thing. And it's not a black and white subject. Not having guns doesn't automatically make you a monarchy. Suggesting such is ridiculous and provides a fruitless argument.

18pfsmt 14y ago
Actually, it is neither rhetoric, nor a straw man; I never suggested that you, specifically, advocated for a monarchy. However, back in the 18th century, many people in Europe probably would have (Canada and Australia certainly opted for dependence upon a monarchy). My main point was to demonstrate that simply because other countries participate and subscribe to a certain way of doing things, does not mean it's the "right way to do it." I was not trying to put words in your mouth. Further, to suggest that the US should rid our society of guns is not realistic and betrays a significant lack of understanding of the prevalent culture in the US. >Explain how you, a member of HN, plan to de-weaponize your government with your pistol. Again, I do not own any gun, but if you would like to see how 'primitive' weapons can be used in defiance of powerful government, just look at Afghanistan or Vietnam. Just so we are doubly clear, I would prefer if all destructive weapons were destroyed, including those of governments. I just don't think that's realistic at this time.

by tomkin 14y ago

18pfsmt 14y ago

Actually, it is neither rhetoric, nor a straw man; I never suggested that you, specifically, advocated for a monarchy. However, back in the 18th century, many people in Europe probably would have (Canada and Australia certainly opted for dependence upon a monarchy). My main point was to demonstrate that simply because other countries participate and subscribe to a certain way of doing things, does not mean it's the "right way to do it." I was not trying to put words in your mouth. Further, to suggest that the US should rid our society of guns is not realistic and betrays a significant lack of understanding of the prevalent culture in the US. >Explain how you, a member of HN, plan to de-weaponize your government with your pistol. Again, I do not own any gun, but if you would like to see how 'primitive' weapons can be used in defiance of powerful government, just look at Afghanistan or Vietnam. Just so we are doubly clear, I would prefer if all destructive weapons were destroyed, including those of governments. I just don't think that's realistic at this time.