Do you think private individuals should also be able to own tanks, ground to air missiles, fighter jets, aircraft carriers and nukes? Why stop at rifles? What do you think rifles will do against a fighter jet?

If you think the people should be able to violently overthrow the government, then the people need to have appropriate armament for something like that. Yet i dont see many people advocating for the right to have tanks.

If more guns means more democracy, why all the places that have tons of guns are so undemocratic? The only exception to this is Switzerland but there people dont actually have guns. Technically they have guns but they have no ammo and their guns are locked and arent allowed to openly carry rifles around.

Everything has a price. And the price for your unrealistic “the government should be afraid of the people because the people have guns” position is the dead children. It’s the every time someone gets angry over something, they have a weapon that can easily end the life of someone else. Do you honestly trust the general public with that power?

Because i am a good christian, i have found the scene from the screenshot

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RUBXybuGg2U

This isnt a good argument. For Fox News carbon emissions are irrelevant or good or whatever. But since Taylor Swift is saying she cares about the environment and according to her carbon emissions are bad for the environment, it is hypocritical to use a private jet.

The problem Fox News have with Taylor Swift isnt her carbon emissions, it is her hypocrisy.

You’re also giving an outdated historic example that doesn’t make sense in the modern world where WMD are everywhere. Those numbers don’t mean anything in case those weapons play a role.

Most countries, including Germany, dont have WMDs or even want to have WMDs. Also WMDs are super expensive to acquire and maintain. And then you just need to keep making more and more.

And you have no escalation capability, you either nuke or you dont. So do you use a nuke if someone grabs 100sqm of your land? Especially since they can retaliate with their own nukes? Would you risk getting your entire country nuked for 100sqm?

Or what if 1000 green men just walk into your governmental buildings and occupy them. And they have guns. Do you nuke them? Do you send the police?

Aside from that, there’s also plenty of historic examples where a smaller army won over (much) bigger one.

And for every one of those examples, there are 100000 examples where the numerically superior army won. One of the main reasons that those early ukrainian breakthroughs were possible was because Russia didnt have enough soldiers. Once Russia conscripted more soldiers, they managed to stabilize the situation and build defenses.

One of the reasons Ukraine hasnt won is because instead of being given thousands of tanks and airplanes, they are given a couple dozen.

All in all, a person should have full control over his own choices in life.

So should a person also have the choice of not paying taxes? How about wearing a seatbelt while driving a car? Or wearing clothes when outside. Or wearing a mask.

Protecting your state is one of the most fundamental things you need to adopt, if you have any interest in living in it. And giving some basic education on how to use and maintain a rifle or do some basic guard duty is useful.

With a globalized world (and more and more cosmopolitans), the choice to disconnect yourself from a country and move to another one and start a new life is also easier as ever.

So your argument is “just leave lol”? Even if we ignore reality(people have houses, jobs, friends, environments, societies that they love and no money to move), what will happen if that strongman comes after to where you run? You keep running? Till you run out of space and neohitler has conquered the entire planet?

The main reason that Putin invaded Ukraine was because he thought your attitude was prevalent in the West. Conscription and helping Ukraine are 2 big signals that show to Putin that he was wrong.

So what is the alternative? Let any authoritarian asshole who has managed to convince many boot lickers to join him, take over your country?

You are confusing concepts. Conscription does not mean bullying needs to be thing. Also ultimately, wars are about numbers and the amount of soldiers(or potential solders) one has, can affect the outcome and actively prevent war.

One of the main reasons Napoleon conquered most of Europe was because he used conscription and had an army of many millions fighting against a few thousand “volunteer” professional armies of other countries.

South Korea absolutely needs conscription. Maybe you are lucky to live in a country that doesnt face a legitimate direct invasion threat. But many, most people arent that lucky.