Europe exists, has more freedom than your shithole country, and very few guns per capita.

Yes, every country with gun laws has turned into a dictatorship. Such is how things go when your freedom to have an assault rifle for defense is restricted. France, Spain, Australia, Norway, Sweden, etc. all currently have totalitarian governments suppressing their citizens more than the USA. Without a gun, every freedom is lost.

/s (obviously)

Do you think private individuals should also be able to own tanks, ground to air missiles, fighter jets, aircraft carriers and nukes? Why stop at rifles? What do you think rifles will do against a fighter jet?

If you think the people should be able to violently overthrow the government, then the people need to have appropriate armament for something like that. Yet i dont see many people advocating for the right to have tanks.

If more guns means more democracy, why all the places that have tons of guns are so undemocratic? The only exception to this is Switzerland but there people dont actually have guns. Technically they have guns but they have no ammo and their guns are locked and arent allowed to openly carry rifles around.

Everything has a price. And the price for your unrealistic “the government should be afraid of the people because the people have guns” position is the dead children. It’s the every time someone gets angry over something, they have a weapon that can easily end the life of someone else. Do you honestly trust the general public with that power?

Russians absolutely have guns. And their laws aren’t very strict. And you seriously think the majority of developed countries where gun laws are stricter than the US’s are in imminent danger of tyranny?

Sheesh. Tyranny absolutely doesn’t care about guns, and even appreciates them in some ways. Because before things are bad enough that government weaponry (which citizens can never hope to match if the government is serious enough) is used to enforce it, militias of extremists will absolutely start the process of turning the country to shit. And will not prevent actual tyrannical behaviour by the government.

Proud Boys standing at polling stations with military weapons to intimidate voters for “safety”. Extremist anti-abortion nutheads enforcing their point of view regardless of laws or basic logic. Police murdering citizens for minor offenses or unfounded suspicions, where a gun on the citizen’s person couldn’t possibly do anything but make the cops more afraid and more violent. (What you gonna do with your guns? Start a frickin’ war with the police? You know they’ll call for reinforcements and now have a perfectly valid reason to shoot, right?)

Those are all happening in the US. Guns aren’t helping with any of this tyrannical behaviour, and while I’m not willing to put my hand over the fire over this take, it would be reasonable to consider whether the popularity of gun laws and lax gun regulation have made things worse.

What you have is shitty slogans and zero thought. You’re a trumpet for NRA propaganda and you’re too dumb to even realise it.

The whole “security for liberty” shit you’re referring to? Actually means the exact opposite of what you’re trying to say.

https://www.npr.org/2015/03/02/390245038/ben-franklins-famous-liberty-safety-quote-lost-its-context-in-21st-century

SIEGEL: So far from being a pro-privacy quotation, if anything, it’s a pro-taxation and pro-defense spending quotation.

WITTES: It is a quotation that defends the authority of a legislature to govern in the interests of collective security. It means, in context, not quite the opposite of what it’s almost always quoted as saying but much closer to the opposite than to the thing that people think it means.

Now which is a more real risk to the collective security of Americans, daily mass shootings or some fantasy where the government is “coming to take muh guns” and you end up living in some hills fighting a guerrilla fight against a military made up of your fellow nationals?

Gee, idk, should we ask the kids who survived Sandy Hook how they feel about it? (They’re old enough to vote now.)