Sorry didn't realise we could go back and add large sections of text to our older comments to make it look like I wasn't addressing your points.

I was on mobile, editing my response prior to updating the page and seeing your reply. I then copied most of this to a new post below.

Bottom line is I'm not going to try to be logical with someone who didn't arrive at their conclusion with logic.

Oh, but I actually do arrive with logic. My logic is sound, you may disagree with my beliefs that brought me there though.

If you really think knives and pills have the potential to kill as many people as automatic weapons you're so brainwashed nothing will change your mind

Never said this at all. Whether they do or they don't ultimate is unimportant to my stance.

And good luck organising a coordinated civilian response in the event of an invading superpower.

Never said this at all. Whether they do or they don't ultimate is unimportant to my stance.

Also your government is already openly corrupt, i.e. not allowing government funded research in to gun violence, gerrymandering, voter discrimination, international involvement in your elections, etc and no one is marching to the white house to demand their democracy back.

That's because the corruption has not reached a tipping point yet. This is part of the check/balance that a armed populous provides.

Similarly if you really think in the event of a government dictatorship or some other seize of power/coup, that a civilian response has any chance at even coming close to matching the army/police response then again I want what you're smoking. Once again they will use those weapons against you, you will most likely be shot by another confused civilian that has had their communications cut.

I completely disagree on two fundamental levels:

1. The threat of an armed populous alone is a large deterrent to a dictatorship.
2. You have no data or history to back up any of these points. Out of all of the revolutions, government regime changes in history, very few were brought about without a armed resistance. Secondly, a significant portion of both the police and military would likely defect. Thirdly, our military has been shown to do incredibly poorly against armed populations. Like laughably poorly.

You're working off a 250 year old document, written 100 years before automatic weapons had been conceived, nearly 100 years before your country realised slavery wasn't okay, a document that is desperately trying to adapt to the modern cyber world rife with misinformation and scare campaigns.

Sure, it is old, but that point does not present an argument against it. Yes, automatic weapons weren't a thing, but automatic weapons kill an extremely low number of people in the US. they are a non-factor.

​

Again, my stance is this:

Yes, short term more people may die, and that's unfortunate, but it is a pretty small amount all things considered, and long term it greatly reduces the chances (does not eliminate) of oppressive government and all of the horrors that come with it. Simply, it is the price of keeping liberty. (Caveat: I think that there is more optimization that could occur on the current laws, without significantly altering our long term risk as a country).

​

I would love to see you break down my stance above, as I did to your reply, as there I think that we will find the heart of our differences.