Quote:
Originally Posted by loramin
[You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]
God what a stupid argument. Yeah, you've got some AK-47s ... that's going to do a whole lot of good if the government shows up on your doorstep with a tank (or a nuke).
Sorry crazy conspiracy people, if the government wants to take over, they can and will, because they have vastly superior weaponry. The 2nd amendment isn't what protects your freedom: it's our democratic system of checks and balances.
The day that fails all the guns you can hoard won't do shit when the corrupt government drops a bomb from a plane on you.
|
By that same logic, I could argue that the military does not need small arms, because its potential enemies have nuclear weapons and tanks.
My point being that while a nuclear weapon is more devastating than a person with a gun, a person with a gun is better able to defend himself against government tyranny than a person without a gun.
A nuke is too messy anyway, it would likely kill many of its allies along with its enemies.