The harm from guns is far, far clearer, and they are far less essential or relevant to daily life, especially for young adults.

Also the US is basically the only country which sees lethality as a "right".

The harm from unaccountable governments who treat their constitutions like suggestions is far greater still, though. It's not about the guns, it's about the list. If you're an American who's not outraged by Emanuel's statement -- on guns or on social media for that matter -- it's because you feel privilege that you may not actually possess.

On that subject, it's certainly a strange time to argue for government's role as the holder of a monopoly on the tools of violence, isn't it? The human consequences of this misguided philosophy ran well into eight figures in the 20th century alone.

In any case... say what you will about the US, we won't shoot you at the border for trying to leave.

> On that subject, it's certainly a strange time to argue for government's role as the holder of a monopoly on the tools of violence, isn't it? The human consequences of this misguided philosophy ran well into eight figures in the 20th century alone.

Sounds like you think the argument people are making is that it ought to have the monopoly?

I think the argument is that whoever doesn't have that monopoly, can't call themselves a government… at least not for very long. Reason being, not having a monopoly necessarily requires someone else is doing violence and cannot be stopped by the so-called government, which means the so-called government is weak and at risk of being taken over, perhaps by the people doing the violence, perhaps by a outside "peacekeeping" force.

It's OK for the government to have the best guns, and in fact (as you suggest) that state of affairs is pretty much unavoidable for any government worthy of the name.

It's not OK for the government to have all the guns.

Given that, it's necessary to consider who should have legal access to guns and who should not.

What we call the "No-fly list" is an abhorrently-wrong way to do that.

> It's not OK for the government to have all the guns.

Why?

The argument I've heard Americans give over the years is to stop authoritarian governments, to keep the government "scared" of the people.

Yet people in the USA are now being snatched off the street and deported for what is supposed to be protected by the first amendment: speech.

Clearly literally getting shot at didn't keep Trump "scared".

Maybe because everyone knows violent uprising should be a last resort and things aren't bad enough to condemn millions to stravation and death yet.

Unless you are saying you personally would join a US uprising, asking why armed people haven't yet started one yet themselves isn't a compelling arguement to disarm them. If people were shooting back I think you and most others would be condemning them.

I'm saying Trump isn't even afraid of an uprising.

That's not a condemnation of the people failing to replicate the Jan 6 thing while switching red flags for blue ones.

I'm saying the freedom to have guns didn't do the thing that people say it does.

I would go further: I also don't think private arms would work if y'all did start firing them, because who wins a civil war is more likely to depend who the military supports than private firearms, and if the military aren't the deciding factor for whatever reason (internal split within the military?) then it's down to whoever outside the country is supplying weapons/logistics to which side (so, probably China?)

We aren't talking about a civil war though, we are talking about a civil uprising. Trump didn't take the government by force or strongarm politicians into compliance, they mostly went along with all this bullshit too. People already had the view that federal politicians as a whole were corrupt and self-serving and have been failing to effectively govern and legislate in the country's favor for decades. I also doubt any or enough of them would be willing to take up arms themselves and become a factional leader. Nobody is going to rally behind Kamala or some geriatric or the democratic party even if they were willing to try.

And in an insurgency type situation private arms/small arms are extremely effective, if costly with lives. The US failing to subdue multiple countries long term despite having a tiny fraction the amount of small arms, veterans, or people directly involved in US logistics operations, is all the proof we need. Nobody wants that, it would be horrendous and bloody, but tanks and planes don't run off mere hopes and dreams and the US citizenry is more heavily armed by multiple factors than any other country or people in history.

The other thing that private arms buys you is international support. If you show that you can make the most of limited offensive capabilities, you attract allies whose interests are aligned to your own, as seen from the American Revolution to modern-day Ukraine.

If you disarm and roll over meekly, nobody is going to want to help you.

And if you know anything about Rahm Emanuel's background, you'd think he'd be the one waving this particular banner, but... (shrug)

> In any case... say what you will about the US, we won't shoot you at the border for trying to leave.

How does this alleged virtue square away with everything else that's going on?

There ara bunch of murdered Venezuelan fishermen right now that never came even remotely close to the border, let alone transiting it in either direction.

"Say what you will about zombies eating your brains, at least they won't eat your eyes."