>>39
Exactly.
Disarm people actually means: disarm LAW ABIDING PEOPLE, so that they can't protect themselves from a) criminals, b) a criminal corrupt government

Yup, I totally trust this government atm that tried to force gene therapy / poison shit into my body.
How about the government gives away its guns instead, because it made it obvious that it can't be trusted. Its guns are even tax payer funded, which means tax payer should have a say if the government get to have guns or not.

Let me think about it:
Guns given away by regular citizens.
- citizens can be attacked by criminals and government, can't defend themselves from either, have to hope that government steps in, which they don't do, after all they are the ones wanting the guns in the first place, not guns of criminals of course

Gun-free government:
- citizens still can't be attacked and can defend themselves and the government can get removed when they overstep boundaries without major blood shed, like force-injecting poison into the population, doing medical Nazi experiments, etc. In fact they would not even try to overstep these boundaries in the first place, because of fear.

I only see pros in a non-gun, non-violent government.

Just imagine a gun free government invading Afghanistan.