Yeah, the “storming of the capital” wasn’t a government overthrow.
Look at Australia throwing people into covid camps, couldn’t happen in America.
Look at people being rounded up for speech in the UK; I guarantee any mass attempt to do this in the states would be met with dead cops.
On and on and on.
A well armed populace ensures a more polite government.
Ok, forget the US example.
Nepal did just oust their government for banning social media. They did not need guns to do it.
You apparently didn’t read what I wrote and are attempting to justify your viewpoint at any costs.
What country are you in?
I could say exactly the same thing back to you. You addressed one of my points and ignored the other. Which I then raised again.
The often presented argument is that guns stop government tyranny but the recent events in Nepal show that government tyranny can be stopped without guns. So saying guns are essential to prevent government tyranny is demonstrably not accurate.
My nationality or the country that I’m in is irrelevant to whether the argument is valid or not. If you want to make it about who I am or where I’m from then you are not acting in good faith to debate the point.
Yeah dude, you can’t cherry pick your points and then make a cohesive one.
You’re arguing in bad faith.
I gave two relevant examples. You gave a reasonable response to one which I accept but have not addressed the second.
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.
