Possessing a weapon is a reasonable deterrent to a tyrannical government?
|
On average, everyone agrees with nonconsensus between 35 voters. |
|
Please read the comments from other voters below, then scroll down make your decision. Do you agree or disagree with the following statement?
Possessing a weapon is a reasonable deterrent to a tyrannical government
You need to register a voting profile or login before you can vote.
Reasons To DisagreeA few guns won't stop the military. If you think you can take on trained professional killers like cops and soldiers you've watched to many movies. If they think you are to much of a threat then they will just bring in tanks. 21 February 2021
|
Reasons To AgreeAny government that has overtaken their people had to disarm them first. 27 November 2018
First this question should have been worded more like this. Possessing arms (as in baseball bats, swords or guns)is a reasonable deterrent to a tyrannical government? Yes the people should have arms always. Because the government should be afraid of the people. The people should never be afraid of the government. 29 November 2018
The government is less likely to talk your rights away if we were all armed. 4 May 2020
Weapons are important in our society 26 January 2024
|
Reasons for Remain Neutral
It may be helpful, but a single owner of a weapon without the structure of well-trained militant group is useless. If it is not asked, however- for self-defense purposes it is reasonable to carry a weapon as a deterrent.
For self defense a weapon can be useful potentially, but un the wrong untrained hands it can often do more harm than good.
My View
You can make your comments once you have voted.
You need to register a voting profile or login before you can vote.
