o**********e
发帖数: 18403 | 1 i agree with this point of view. Just look at Mexico to see the
alternative. Guns were banned in Mexico theoretically, but the gangs
smuggled them in (from US, but could be from anywhere). They banned death
penalty too, and for a moment bragged how advanced and humane they are (joined
all the other gun-banning, humane democracies).
But now the common folks in Mexico just sat helpless in the crosshair
between gangs and government, unable to protect themselves from kidnappers and
murderers. Nor can they trust the government which is not a tyranny, just a
corrupt democracy.
England, switzerland is a special case. They had a long tradition of
democracy and law (300+ years), trust between government and people, and
relatively homogeneous population. So in short term they are not in danger
of falling to tyranny or corruption or rampant gangs. The same is not true
of Mexico or even the US. so it's good that the Americans are better
prepared.
The opposite of a sound democracy is not only tyranny, but also corrupt,
lawlessness and criminality. An armed public is the best defense against all
three. Self defense is too important to completely outsource to any
government. |
|
