Because I don’t need to address it.
One case in a backwater country does not make a rule, it doesn’t even make an example.
You’re inability to recognize that while glazing over the multiple examples I provided of AUS and UK, and really all of Europe shows your not having a good faith discussion.
So I’m not allowed to use examples you don’t like?
In your examples was there a concerted effort by the populous to oppose government tyranny that was suppressed with lethal force by the government?
I don’t think there was.
Were some people unhappy? Sure. Were enough people unhappy enough to attempt to remove the government forcefully or otherwise? Obviously not. Was this because they didn’t have guns? It’s impossible to say.
What I can say with 100% certainty is that all those people in Nepal, that you so eloquently described as a backwater, were pissed off enough with their government to forcefully remove them despite not having a gun owning citizenry.
The point I’m trying to make is that the argument stating you need guns to prevent government tyrany just doesn’t stack up for me. The US government is plenty tyrannical despite the citizens owning guns.
I replied to this but for some reason it did t go through.
I’m not interested in your pigeonholed arguments and confirmation bias.
Here’s a shortened reply:
Our constitution is the greatest governmental document in history.
Guns are inscribed into it for a reason.
Consult with the founding fathers why gun ownership is so it important it was written only second to freedom of speech.
You won’t, because you don’t care about reality, only your absurd confirmation bias.
