In 1929, the Soviet Union established gun control. From 1929 to 1953, about 20 million dissidents, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated. In 1911, Turkey established gun control. From 1915 to 1917, 1.5 million Armen ians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated. Remember the reason the 2nd amendment was created. Our problem is mental illness, not guns. The US has the highest rate of mental illness and that's what we need to fix.
So when did the US become a fascist dictatorship that rounds up its citizens and executes them in a mass genocide? We are not the Soviet Union or Turkey. With the Soviet Union having a huge reputation for genocidal acts of ethnic cleansing. Also the second amendment was created to overthrow the federal government in case it became too powerful and overreaching. This was at a time where colonists absolutely hated any time of government that was too powerful because it too closely resembled monarchy. It has no place now.
This is an extreme example obviously. You have to be ready for things and if the government takes away guns from us then we are defenseless.
Your problem is mental illness, which is why you are impersonating a high school student on the internet.
Why does gun control somehow morph into nobody can have guns except the government. Control doesn't mean eliminate. It just means control. We could clearly use better gun control, and there is clearly a way to do so without seriously impeding on your right to bear arms and protect yourself against neighbors, terrorists, your own government, etc. Yes, some rights will be taken away, inevitably, with strict gun control, and yes, it's a step closer to the no guns for anyone scenario but its also a better middle ground, imo. Mental illness is a separate issue that touches on gun control on the edges but shouldn't drive gun control laws.
Can the OP please expand on the gun control that his examples implemented and how they compare to any significant proposed gun contol legislation in the United States? Thanks!
Better question: why are you guys debating gun control with a person who is, quite literally, a child?
The premise of the original post presents a circular argument, doesn't it? If the government were a dictatorship, it wouldn't allow citizens to own guns. If it weren't a dictatorship, citizens wouldn't need guns (at least not for the purpose stated). For the premise to have a different outcome, one or both of the groups must break the law, in which case, gun prohibition wouldn't matter eh?
I tend to be in agreement with this post. I think the causal relationship is solid and worrisome. Similarly, it's disconcerting that the Soviet Union and Turkey each had a military. And they rounded up millions of dissidents and killed them. Thus, I can only assume that having a military means they will murder our people. So I think it's vital - and I have to imagine that the OP must agree - that we immediately dismantle our military.
this has to be one of the most r****ded threads I have ever read. Gun control doesn't = no guns you idiot. Gun control could be limiting magazines to 5 bullets.
I find it humorous that if the govt wanted to take us out, a guy with a gun is going to deter or stop them. If the government wanted to take us out, there are much more cleaner and efficient ways with the tech available nowadays (eg Bio). Go ahead. Try shooting them viruses and bacteria with your shotguns. Or a drone or a tank steamrolling your home.
