3 ms·
I find this bit to be on the 'oh-please' side of crazy: >They try to disarm the public in the name of safety while arming themselves to the teeth and solving e
by thisone 14y ago
I find this bit to be on the 'oh-please' side of crazy:
>They try to disarm the public in the name of safety while arming themselves to the teeth and solving every problem they have with the threat of violence.
because I have a friend who used this basic argument to say gun control increases the likelihood of a nuclear strike on DC by North Korea.
- hmottestad 14y agoPeople with big guns always say they are trying to make peace. Doesn't mean that trying to make peace is a bad thing. And by "disarm" I presume in the terms of rights/finances/influence....rather than literally in terms of guns.
- ianstallings 14y agoWell is it not the truth? The US has the world's most heavily armed police forces. Their military makes others look quaint. They have military actions going on today right now all over the world. They always need more $ to continue the violence. Yet they claim that violence is wrong. It's really no wonder we're like a bunch of crazy people. The simple fact is uncle sam solves every problem with violence so I'm not surprised when it's citizens act the same way.
- thisone 14y agoIn the overall argument, I find a distinction between citizen and government. I disagree with the Supreme Court's interpretation of the second amendment, so that gives a basis of where I come from when equating ownership of firearms for personal protection to a standing military. However, I can't stop my eye's from rolling at someone telling me that if everyone had guns, there would be no nuclear threat from any person/group/country. I honestly don't understand how one can connect to the other.