Thank ya kindly.
I’m not sure where you’re from but I think United States history would disagree with you. Granted, there should be some underlying principles behind them but they can have a place in time with the right reasons.
I agree with some of what you’re saying here. I grew up with one of my grandfather’s having a shotgun and some rifles but he used them on his farm to take care of racoons and other predators. Past that I was not around guns and even though my Dad served in Vietnam and saw combat, both of my parents were anti-gun. As a teen and adult I was mostly anti-gun as well and figured the police were enough and couldn’t figure out why people need an “assault rifle.” Then I met my wife and her family is more pro-gun a couple hunters and definitely AR ownership. I started to learn things about firearms and eventually got interested in having something for EDC but still didn’t understand the rest of it completely because I didn’t hunt. Then I met my friend that served in the Army as infantry during the Iraq invasion. He took me shooting with some of his friends and they had a small arsenal of AR’s, pistols, and shotguns. I was really interested in learning about the AR’s too and got to shoot them and understood what they were really about and why they’re useful for defense. I’ve since had a couple professionally trained classes as well and am about to take another next week. So here I am now with a complete opposite opinion from where I was a few years ago. It might be possible with a well done education plan, but it would definitely take some time.
In Change Management there’s a method called “ADKAR” (awareness, desire, knowledge, ability, and reinforcement). Aside from raising “awareness” for what you’re trying to implement, the “desire” for change is the single most important element of implementing change. Typically that includes some kind of WIIFM (what’s in it for me?) and that would need to be spelled out very clearly and to the point. Making trainers and facilities to train at would be crucial to help people get theirs hands on a firearm and make them “less scary” and that may help support the “desire” for change.
Revolutions are only stupid if those revolting lose. If they lose, their situation will surely be worse that it was and they will lose more than just what they were fighting for. But, if they win, they win more than they were fighting for. I think @Jason148 calls it pretty well for the US. We gained independence by taking up arms and the drafters of the Constitution always presumed that the we citizens would always be the ultimate defense against further tyranny by the government. (See Federalists No. 46.)
“To these would be opposed a militia amounting to near half a million of citizens with arms in their hands, officered by men chosen from among themselves, fighting for their common liberties, and united and conducted by governments possessing their affections and confidence. It may well be doubted, whether a militia thus circumstanced could ever be conquered by such a proportion of regular troops. Those who are best acquainted with the last successful resistance of this country against the British arms, will be most inclined to deny the possibility of it. Besides the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation, the existence of subordinate governments, to which the people are attached, and by which the militia officers are appointed, forms a barrier against the enterprises of ambition, more insurmountable than any which a simple government of any form can admit of.”
The Federalist Papers
The population at the time the Constitution was ratified was about 4 million with about 800,000 of those free white males. 500,000 of those would account for 63% of that population being armed.
Well, thats comforting. Sure glad they have our back in a crisis. I will sleep better now.
IIRC the Czechs have embraced civilian gun ownership for defensive purposes.
I could be wrong though.