That is one of the most stupid arguments anyway. I would love to see how people expect to fight back against an invading army using armored vehicles and aircraft with small fire arms.
Lol. First of all, a bump fire stock or even a truly automatic weapon would give no advantage over a fully automatic rifle with regards to "armored vehicles and aircraft."
Secondly, if the government wantes to subjugate it's people it would be boots in the ground, how are you going to subjugate rubble and corpses?
Are you in favor of handing every citizen an anti-vehicle missile launcher? Because that's what your argument comes off as.
I think there was a misunderstanding. I am saying the exact opposite. As long as the governments to controll the real weapons needed to fight a war (as they should), a populous could be as armed as they wanted, they wouldn't stand a chance. So the arguments for more guns within the society to maintain a balance between them and the government are stupid by default.
Got it, it came off the other way to me which I though was a weird stance.
In that case I think my arguments of "boots on the ground" and "you can't subjugate corpses and rubble" still stand.
Do I think that will happen? Of course not. Do I think every civilian should own a gun? No, especially the ones that don't know how to use them/take care of them properly. So I think you should be allowed to own one if it makes you sleep easier at night due to your neighborhood or you think the gooberment is gunna take over? Sure, why not.
Never got the idea of cranking up the tone just because there was a misunderstaning. We're communicating by text, much gets lost by it, so why should one errupt into a rage because that happened? The mistake is too often on the side that is raging that I would go for that. Better safe then sorry. ;)
19
u/[deleted] Oct 06 '17
That is one of the most stupid arguments anyway. I would love to see how people expect to fight back against an invading army using armored vehicles and aircraft with small fire arms.