>>515806202
The U.S. government has already been proven to be spying on all of us or has the capabilities to pull up info on all of us or at least the corporations do. Many gun advocates then point to this as justification as to having a gun. Let's take away the fact many are only human and could easily injure themselves or others if they shoot a gun at all in private or public or if they even trained well in handling a gun. Accidents still happen.
Let's ignore that.
The U.S. having such easy access to guns still leads to one crazy guy who is not being monitored by the totalitarian -esque U.S. sureveillance system not catching this one crazy guy being able to kill. Wouldn't the moral compass of gun owners then be severely off if they are unable to stop this crazy guy? Then they advocate for everyone to be trained to handle a gun. But we see with shit that many people even driving are unable to handle that.
If the gun manufacturers were or if one of them was given an advantage, monopolized the industry and then had no competition, would that make the country safer? This is a genuine hypothetical so I guess that would make it easier for it to cheap out on guns and then the buyers would die or people around guns would be injured but would that be unlikely since most gun owners are educated about guns and expect maximum safety? Genuinely asking.
I'm saying if guns given a long enough time horizon with laws restricting the 2nd amendment to a degree would be beneficial. You say people should die for their freedoms. I'm saying you don't even have to die at all. Considering AR-15's didn't exist back then where the individual could not have as much power as they have today,