Weapons don't really help to defend you against the government

[noname223]

Today I read an article in a very conservative Swiss newspaper. It was about the gun culture in the US. One reader wrote: Even if you own a machine gun it does not really help against a governent with nukes, drones and modern tanks. I also made that argument when I was debating the most right-wing contact I have.
Yeah I agree with it. Having a gun does not protect you from the government. In my point of view this argument is pretty empty. On the other hand there is the argument a gun protects you for example from your neighbor. But that is a different a debate. I solely want to concentrate me on the defence against the government aspect.

Now when I think of it. You could argue in favor of events like January the 6th. Weapons as a help in a coup. Yeah but I rather consider what happened as undemocratic. Weapons in order to kill politicans as one wishes is a pretty stupid and dangerous idea. A democracy should be defended by seperation of powers. For example by independent judges. If everyone just fights for vigilante justice there will only be chaos and anarchy.

 

[nightnightnitrite]

A gun vs. an armored vehicle is also a point to bring up. Just because you have a glock or shotty doesn't mean you even stand a chance against the military grade weapons and vehicles the government has. Sure it might protect you from your neighbor but most people who are pro gun will let the whole world know that, therefore you can assume their neighbors/ops know and will come prepared if they do decide to try and harm you. Guns breed nothing but violence from stupid minds. Also, I'm just guessing and don't know the actual stats but I'm pretty sure the amount of innocent people/kids killed by others with guns far outweigh the guilty killed with guns from defense each year.

 

[Julgran]

Today I read an article in a very conservative Swiss newspaper. It was about the gun culture in the US. One reader wrote: Even if you own a machine gun it does not really help against a governent with nukes, drones and modern tanks. I also made that argument when I was debating the most right-wing contact I have.
Yeah I agree with it. Having a gun does not protect you from the government. In my point of view this argument is pretty empty. On the other hand there is the argument a gun protects you for example from your neighbor. But that is a different a debate. I solely want to concentrate me on the defence against the government aspect.

Now when I think of it. You could argue in favor of events like January the 6th. Weapons as a help in a coup. Yeah but I rather consider what happened as undemocratic. Weapons in order to kill politicans as one wishes is a pretty stupid and dangerous idea. A democracy should be defended by seperation of powers. For example by independent judges. If everyone just fights for vigilante justice there will only be chaos and anarchy.

The game was over the day the citizens decided to relinquish their power to the institution called "the state", which is just a collection of pretend intellectuals who can't fight their way out of a paper bag.

Nukes would probably not be used in such a case, since that may ruin the soil for planting food for future generations - unless the government has access to bunkers in which they can start up their own, new society, including food production.

There may always be vigilante justice for as long as taxpayer money doesn't go to law enforcement, but to corrupt politicians.

When it comes to the question of a civil war between the government and its people, and who would win, it probably comes down to which country we are talking about. While citizens of an unarmed country can't do much, I believe the Americans could accomplish more. Over there. it's said that there's a gun behind every blade of grass, which also may make it difficult for foreign powers to invade.

 

[Disappointered]

Maybe it depends on the particular environment but apparently the leader of Brazil loosened restrictions on access to guns for law abiding people and the violent crime rate dropped by 20% or something.

As for guns vs gov't, I'd still rather have guns. A gov't has to take chances and hope most of the population will be on board or just comply w/o resistance if it wants to use force to increase authoritarian coercive power. The more people with guns the harder it will be for such a gov't.

People get beat up, cut up, have acid thrown in their faces etc...I'd rather be in a conceal carry jurisdiction. Even if I died in an altercation at least I'd have a chance at shooting the assailant.

 

[Rapière]

*laughs in vietnamese*

 

[Lost Magic]