Quote:
Originally posted by cosmoknight
Your reasoning is without proper thought/morals behind owning a weapon it doesn't make you free which is true. However unless you live in some social uptopia without any weapons a disarmed populance is at the mercy of its leaders who are so equiped. A monk in China could have dreams of freedom but without something to threaten the government back he will end up as a tread smeer on a tank.
|
This isn't necessarily addressed to your post but this is in general:
A gun still won't knock out a tank. Nor will a single person with a gun threaten a 'government.'
The best thing going for this 'government' though is that the 'government' is made up of people.
At any rate I only find it silly because, in the end, guns or not, you're not going to stop the modern military unless the people running it are on your side.
If the entire military were robots, then yes, do fear indeed for they may be controlled at the whim of one mad man.
Which is another reason why I find the guns versus government argument to be a bit off in the modern day. Do they protect you from government? If you mean immediate government, sure, though you really shouldn't be needing if lest you commit a crime. Then, in which case, who is more wrong? Surely, it would depend on the nature of the crime.
But against the modern military? This is one of those catch-22s and double edged blades. The stronger you want the military, the less likely you have a chance at stopping it. It's just a simple fact and a good reason why revolts don't happen at the rates they do today in nations without military support.
But in the end, that's probably the least of my concerns right now. It's far easier to slowly take away our rights one by one through means deemed legitimate than to take away our rights illegally in force.