|
There are more democracies in the 20th + 21st century world than not who have much more stringent gun control laws than the U.S. and have had no need for the populace to defend themselves against the tyranny of the government.
You point to Nazi Germany (which is a disingenous example given that regardless of gun ownership, most Germans supported Hitler) and I point to the U.K., Australia, Sweden, Switzerland, France, Canada, Japan, etc.
Your example of Iraq actually demonstrates my point - they've been very effective in defending themselves against our nation, but they were not allowed to own guns before we invaded. (Technically, I believe they are still not allowed to own guns.)
I'm not questioning your bigger question/point - I fully support access to guns - I'm pointing out that the claim that we need them to defend ourselves from our government is based on 18th + 19th century concepts of defense and warfare. It no longer applies. To promote your cause of access to guns, you'd be better off if you dropped the rationalizations that are meaningless.
Back to the devil's advocate: Why do you draw the line at assault weapons and not fully automatic weapons? And why not draw the line at bombs? Or nuclear weapons? What's wrong with some shotguns and rifles for hunting and some handguns for personal defense?
|