Hacker News Reader

Those two things are in no way comparable.

But they are, as both are no longer necessary in a civil, functioning society. Consider Europe, much of Asia, which have been able to achieve democracy, stability, and little need for open carry or slavery.

Now, one has a lot of open supporters (gun rights exceeding the US second amendment, in that the regulated militia component gets left out).

1) A more fair interpretation of the pro-gun argument would be that firearm rights are designed to guarantee long-term stability and democracy. The current stability of a small amount of relatively young democracies in Europe and Asia that do not have gun rights does not debunk the claim that gun rights protect against tyranny over the long term.

2) Considering the EXTREMELY violent, turbulent history of the last 100-150 years of governance (democratic and otherwise) in Europe and Asia, I don't think this is the strong argument you think it is.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com