02-23-2021, 09:16 AM
(02-23-2021, 08:15 AM)Belsnickel Wrote: Because it is seen as a slippery slope. There is a large proportion of firearm owners, Fudds included, that see civilian ownership of firearms as a protective barrier against a tyrannical government. The government knowing who has what firearms is a threat to that barrier. They don't trust the government with that information, and I don't disagree with them on that point. An armed populous is a bulwark, and it's something that both the right and left agree on (I'm talking actual leftists, not the centrists that are the Democratic party).
This is kind of off-topic, but it's a fantasy to think civilians with rifles and small arms can put up any resistance to this government and the military weapons we have today. It made a ton of sense at the time, but they never could have dreamed of the weapons we'd possess today. This is where people will point to tribal resistance in other countries, but the reality is that tracking foreign terrorists is much harder than finding U.S. citizens on our own grid. If it was a true resistance they would launch aerial assassinations via drone strikes and with the NSA ability to track comms, especially those on U.S. backbones, people would be found almost instantaneously.
The other issue here is most resistances have to be supported by a foreign state to have any chance at success. Who is going to support a U.S.-based one that such a resistance would accept help from? The only ones that could really provide tech that would make a difference are China and Russia, two places that you'd have to assume this hypothetical resistance would not accept help from.
There are reasons to own guns, but the fantasy of checking a government that possesses weapons that can vaporize millions of people in seconds isn't one of them. Of all the arguments I think that is actually the weakest today.
