lol. This is why this is pointless. You naively assert little benefit by decree based entirely on your own biases. The whole point is that many people believe that weapon ownership yields a great deal of benefit. One might even draw a correlation b/w the 1/2 amendments...
-
-
And argue that one reason why your own nation is rapidly losing its ability to speak freely is because your government in no way fears its people.
2 replies 0 retweets 1 like -
And before you go down the route of “guns don’t do anything against the government” route, consider how well the US is armed compared to Iraq, and meditate upon the game theory of asymmetric warfare for a bit.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @MattPirkowski @johnihunter
US involvement in Iraq is hugely limited - nothing like an assault on home soil would be. And the govt is careful to avoid civilian casualties so tempers its power. If it were set on tyrannising its own people, it'd have no such restrictions.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @G_S_Bhogal @johnihunter
That is the most motivated reasoning I’ve ever heard. The cost of tyranny within an area that’s decently armed and willing to fight back far exceeds that of a complicit populous trained to behave.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @MattPirkowski @johnihunter
Firstly, it would be impossible for a tyrant to realistically emerge in the US due to separation of powers. Secondly, if a tyrant were to somehow emerge, *and* have full support of military, what would an AR-15 possibly do against a F-22?
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @G_S_Bhogal @johnihunter
Ok, so you apparently haven’t been witnessing the dissolution of separation occurring over the past 30 years. And how much do F-22s cost to operate? And how likely is their use to trigger increased resistance and insurgency? Ya gotta think these things through...
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
A first line of civil defense establishes a hedge against initial escalation. If that weren’t true, we’d already have extremely strict gun laws like many other countries that didn’t possess cultures of armed self-defense and a philosophical history of institutional distrust.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @MattPirkowski @johnihunter
This reasoning is debunked here. (Of course, you won't accept it without a fight, but if you want to know what I think, it's probably better to read this rather than an endless back and forth in 280 chars): https://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2013/01/why-the-citizen-militia-theory-is-the-worst-pro-gun-argument-ever/272734/ …
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @G_S_Bhogal @johnihunter
I’ve read it, and couldn’t imagine a sillier line of reasoning. Anyone who makes the case that there’s no difference—with respect to probable abuses of power—between an armed and unarmed nation is simply deluding themselves. The differential game theory is painfully obvious.
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes
The article shows why it isn't. But it's clear we won't agree, so rather than stress ourselves out trying to convince each other, it's probably best to put a nail in this, and do something more productive. Despite the disagreement, it's always interesting talking to you 
-
-
Replying to @G_S_Bhogal @johnihunter
I don’t see how it does. It just tells a very specific story about a few circumstances in which guns were used in ways that the author dislikes. It says nothing of the actual system dynamics or game theory. But sure, consider it nailed.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @MattPirkowski @johnihunter
The point the author (and I) disputed was your belief that a militia is a hedge against tyranny. It uses examples of how it was not only ineffectual in history, but also led to tyranny of looters, etc. I knew you wouldn't agree; just wanted you to see where I'm coming from.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes - 8 more replies
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.