You mean except for all the people in the government trying to explicitly ban guns from being owned by the public.
I think I'm interpreting "disarm" and "ban guns" a bit more broadly than you, but regardless, I'll rephrase - I strongly disagree with the notion that an armed population are somehow a check on the federal government or a deterrent to any undesirable activity on their part, and that if the government were planning to pass shitty, unpopular, or blatantly unconstitutional laws, they would first need to disarm the population. That's just something that gun enthusiasts like to tell themselves (and everyone else) so they can imagine that they're actually performing an important civic duty by pursuing their hobby.
This is correct. I have no intention of violent acts upon any individual or government entity. Violence is wrong and bad.
I'm not trying to call you specifically out. I'm just saying that the implied threat of an armed population in this country making trouble for or resisting an oppressive government is ultimately an empty one. Americans will not rise up against their government
en masse, with or without their guns. Politicians know this. In fact, I'd say that anyone who has taken the time to actually think about this subject instead of immediately accepting gun enthusiasts' romanticized view of their hobby as the undisputed truth knows this. In light of this fact, I think that conspiracy theories about how gun control laws and policies are secretly intended to make the population compliant and unable to resist in the face of further tyranny fall apart.
Recent Posts