PrinceofWands
Lifer
Originally posted by: JohnOfSheffield
Originally posted by: yllus
Originally posted by: JohnOfSheffield
now commence the cricket symphony.
I think the issue is that you don't seem to be getting a very basic point.
- A government is made out of that nation's citizens.
- An army is made out of that nation's citizens.
- People (citizens) don't easily take to killing themselves.
An order to do so would quickly be met with incredulity, following by outrage, followed by the military refusing to carry out the order, followed by the exit of the politicians who issued and backed the order. You simply will not convince a good Virginia boy to drive a tank down his home city's streets and let loose a few rounds on his neighbours.
IOW, why would the citizens need guns, it's not like they want to kill themselves.
The entire argument is about the second amendment and if citizens with guns really do affect the governments status as servants to the people, some imply that in a nation where the populous are unarmed the citizens are servants of their government and would have a harder time to overthrow an opressive government, i disagree, hence my saying so.
If the miliary doesn't obey the orders, will an armed populous make a difference? No.
If the military does obey the orders, will an armed populous make a difference? No.
That is the argument i'm presenting, i'm not even arguing about gun ownership, only about the relevance of the second amendment in todays world where handguns are as low tech as throwing itty bitty pieces of cloth at your opponents was back when it was written.
This discussion is about gun ownership, i'm not against it, i'm just saying that using the second amendment as an excuse for it is daft.
No, you're not presenting an argument. You're presenting an opinion then refusing to back it up or respond to the arguments of others.