It's interesting that gun rights were sold on the basis of "resisting unlawful government." They seen to have caused and supported unlawful government.
It's interesting that gun rights were sold on the basis of "resisting unlawful government." They seen to have caused and supported unlawful government.
You're viewing a single thread.
Almost every tyrannical regime in the 20th century systematically disarmed their citizenry, leading to some of the greatest atrocities the world has ever seen. It's not a coincidence.
That's not true, they disarmed their undesirables.
However private gun ownership would have done next to nothing in those scenarios anyway.
I guess "undesirables" don't count as part of the citizenry? You're only reinforcing my point, that the government stripped firearms from the people they wanted to kill/oppress. If it wasn't worth doing, nobody would have done it. Instead, Pol Pot, Hitler, Idi Amin, Stalin, Kim I'll Sung, Mao, Mussolini, etc., have ALL taken away firearms in some way from their peoples.
Moving the goalposts a lot is your favourite pastime I guess.