the-pi-guy said:
HylianSwordsman said:
I see jason's argument there all over the internet, but it's never made sense to me. The logic seems to go that we protect gun rights to hold the government in check in case it ever tries to oppress us, but if it tried to oppress us, not only would they almost certainly outlaw guns, whether they outlawed them or not, rising up against your government is illegal, and according to these same people, making gun control laws just means that only outlaws will have guns. So in other words if you need to revolt against your government, the laws don't matter anymore and they won't stop you from getting a gun anyway once your mind is made up to oppose the laws. So what's the point of legal gun rights to support illegal action against your government that would never be legal to do whether the guns are legal or not? It's just crazy, circular logic. If you need to revolt against your government, the legality of guns is the least of your worries, but we're not there yet. |
I think it's more problematic in the US.
A lot of conservatives (not all, though), support massive military spending. A lot of that spending goes towards R & D, which basically goes towards making super weapons.
So there are people that make that argument (that they need guns to stop a tyrannical government), who basically have supported making their guns worthless against the government.
|
Shoot, I missed that angle of it. It's even more self-defeating that I first realized.
