Please to explain for the hard of understanding...

[sexobon]

Originally Posted by DanaC

The presence of heavy weaponry. Not rifles. hence my point that if your population is armed to the teeth with the best weaponry - that can act as a deterrant to genocide. It is not an argument for everybody to have their own gun. It is an argument for everyone to have their own rocket launcher.

The reality is that if you don't have the rifles, you don't get the rocket launchers. No one wants to give them to you if you haven't already demonstrated a willingness to use weapons and you won't be able to capture them.

Originally Posted by DanaC

One of the problems, for me, with the 'gun ownership prevents genocide' argument is that it gives a false sense of security against potential state violence. The reason there has been no genocide ofthe American population is not because the population is armed. Nor would the population being routinely armed prevent a genocide if the state turned against them, or if one part ofthe population turned against another part.

It can help discourage the attempt and prevent the completion of it. That's why there are still warring factions in so many countries. They haven't been able to complete it.

Originally Posted by DanaC

The only defence against genocide or tyranny is political ...

You're a self described political animal. That's just self serving.

Originally Posted by DanaC

You're right that an armed population can launch an insurrection in the face of tyranny - but that could only ever be a stop gap measure whilst better weaponry and external support were sought to assist that insurrection.

It's worked before, that's how we kicked your asses.

Originally Posted by DanaC

The big question is how likely are you to ever face such a threat? the answer to that is not very likely at all.

I've never had an automobile accident and probably never will; yet, I carry car insurance. In fact, it's the law. Sensible people don't rely on the odds when it comes to what they can't afford to loose. We don't want to end up like you again. Color us fussy.

Originally Posted by DanaC

The threat of an armed populace dissolving into a brutal and bloody civil war is far more of a threat, but only where the political status quo has collapsed - the defence against that is to strenthen political systems and ties, not to make sure that everybody has a gun for when the shit hits the fan.

The defense is all of the above. That's why it's still in our Constitution and hasn't been repealed. You're not allowed to have them because your government considers you inferior. Can't you just be happy for us that we're doing better?