I have to chuckle when you, of all people, call me naive. I can only think your opinion of Americans is formed solely by watching television, as you have no idea what you're talking about.
Well, I don't expect someone to understand when he lives in a country full of drug traffickers and communists. Probably gun control is the right thing for you.
If you were still interested in having a fruitful conversation you could had ask what data do I have to confirm Americas wouldn't make successful revolutionaries; or at least you would try to explain me why citizens against and pro-government would't kill each other. But instead you decided to call me names.
Let me give you a history lesson; the people you call "drug traffickers" were actually formed as guerrilla and is still called a guerrilla today (FARC and ELN groups); to start a revolution against the government, unfortunately it didn't go so well so the years flied by and they slowly became a rural mafia that kidnap and kill anyone that gets in their way and had long forgot what their purpose is. Another situation that can happen in any country, including America. So yeah, you are very naive about the possible conclusions of an armed revolution.
>If you were still interested in having a fruitful conversation you could had ask what data do I have to confirm Americas wouldn't make successful revolutionaries; or at least you would try to explain me why citizens against and pro-government would't kill each other.
As if you could actually know something like that better than I.
>But instead you decided to call me names.
Which was entirely appropriate after your last comment.
And yes, I'm aware of the genesis of drug traffickers in Columbia. Your condescending attempt at a "history lesson" isn't required.
I don't think I'm being particularly arrogant by pointing out your knowledge of my country is of the primary school variety. Even if you had a more average grasp of US society and politics, you still wouldn't know as much as an American. That's just basic common sense, something which seems to be in short supply on your end.
>And you avoided many points, like civiliant against civilian violence in the scenary of a civil war.
That's not a "point" at all. How does it relate to the discussion?
Well; you say that guns are good because if a revolution is needed is better if the citizens have guns; the problem is that in revolutions the civilians who doesn't want it also have guns; so it gets really violent without affecting any "tyrant".
Of course it depends on the circumstances. Typically a tyrant maintains power by buying off a small portion of the total population. It can be as little as 10%. Somebody like Marcos in the Philippines comes to mind.
Well, I don't expect someone to understand when he lives in a country full of drug traffickers and communists. Probably gun control is the right thing for you.