In 1920, the UK introduced gun control, not to stop crime but explicitly because the state was worried about the political implications of an armed population. That was the reason given by parliament at the time.
In 1941, George Orwell warned: "That rifle on the wall of the labourer's cottage or working class flat is the symbol of democracy. It is our job to see that it stays there."
Today, the UK is an authoritarian dystopia.
Maybe the Americans had a point.
Login to reply
Replies (5)
MentisWave really red pilled me on this.
(Super based libertarian YouTube channel btw, if you don't already follow him you should.)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gryPoExrJLU
nostr:nevent1qqs9jl5raemr9hlp9zu0mgr8dd5gf9juu9xtrukt4ffch5gj0mk940gpzamhxue69uhkummnw3ezuemvv4jh5efwvdhk6tczyrc0lpl80946sm7gfdyq0vj6thhzqmtjf3hkr25g2wt45ww7aml4sqcyqqqqqqgp2z4lz
We 100% had a point.
It’s why we vehemently defend 1a, 2a, and 4a more than any others.
Free speech is paramount to freedom, 2a is paramount to defending 1a.
Because when governments don’t like 1a they use violence to silence it.
It’s better to be a warrior in a garden than a gardener in a war.
You can’t be a warrior if you don’t have the means to defend yourself.
Absolutely. The consequences of the state's monopoly on violence are the erosion of the citizen's freedoms.
Impossible to deny based on objective reality.
An armed populace is difficult to control. The US government knows this and tries to normalize disarming its citizenry
I want to add that humans are imperfect "by default". No one can get an armor that makes them immortal or invincible or perfect. Humans can't and will never achieve perfect defense. The better you get at a specific thing, the cracks and trade-offs start to show in previously unrelated parts.
In order to defend yourself effectively, you will always need the ability to inflict damage