Any help against this anti-gun argument?
My dad and I got into this argument earlier. It went something like this. Me (Pro-gun): I think we should be able to own any gun we want. Dad (Anti-big-gun): I don’t think anyone should be able to own automatic rifles designed for mass killing. In what scenario would you need an automatic rifle? A pistol is sufficient for self-defense. Me: What if the government is over stepping and becomes authoritarian? Dad: Do you know just how powerful the US government is? Have you seen how easily the US deals with armed cults? Even if every person in (our state) had an assault rifle, we wouldn’t stand the tiniest chance against the US government. Me: You’re thinking about it incorrectly. This isn’t like in Avengers Endgame, where we all run at each other in two neat straight lines. It’s hard for me to articulate, but it isn’t a war, it is a government and citizens who are unwilling to tolerate any further overreach. Dad checks out at this point and goes inside. I feel like I don’t know this dialectic very well. Can you guys help me out? Is he even correct about the US overpowering its citizens? People will reference other times in history where governments were overthrown or there were insurrections, like Jan 16. But most of those examples are not similar to my scenario, and the government in the US isn’t crazy enough to mow down its citizens (yet). Are there other arguments I should be focusing on instead? How can I word it or continue that to be better defend the pro-gun position? **Another question: at what point is a weapon too destructive to be reasonable to own? Would selling poison gas for example be unethical? Nukes?** submitted by /u/IcyEstablishment261 [link] [comments]
Article from r/Libertarian: For a Free Society
Posts from the /r/Libertarian subreddit which discusses libertarianism. It’s a libertarian sub, about libertarianism. Even if you are not a libertarian you are welcome to participate in good-faith discussion about libertarianism.