In 1787, the delegates of the Constitutinal Convention spent 17 weeks hammering out the U.S. Constitution. The idea behind it was to "Secure the belssing of liberty to ourselves and our posterity." When they emerged from Independance Hall in Philedelphia, only 38 of 55 delegates had signed the document for various reasons, but cheif among them was because our original constitution had NO bill of rights. Patrick Henry stood before the ratifying commitee in 1788 and told them, in no uncertain terms, that the document should not by allowed to pass:
"But we are told that we need not fear; because those in power, being our representatives, will not abuse the powers we put in their hands. I am not well versed in history, but I will submit to your recollection, whether liberty has been destroyed most often by the licentiousness of the people, or by the tyranny of rulers. I imagine, sir, you will find the balance on the side of tyranny. Happy will you be if you miss the fate of those nations, who, omitting to resist their oppressors, or negligently suffering their liberty to be wrested from them, have groaned under intolerable despotism!"
The fate of this nation was condemned so vehemently by people from Vermont to Georgia that in 1789 the legislature was forced to submit the first ten amendments to the states. Among them, the 2nd amendment. The Framers decided that in order to prevent tyranny from overtaking the people that the security of their newly created free state depended on the people being able to take action against it, just as they had done during the war for independence. Their fear of government was so profound that they felt the only way to protect their constitution and their bill of rights was by giving the ordinary citizens the ability to defend both from the inevitable birth of tyranny.
Now, to be fair, I am not advocating for revolution, because as you have already profoundly pointed out: "They certainly didn't set up our democracy in the hope that every time any group of people didn't like a law that democracy produced, they'd abandon any pretense of support for our system of government " Our framers were men of compromise and they were abe to realize that sometimes you have to give a little to get a little (something our current law makers could use a hard lesson in). You dont have to agree with everything, but that doesnt mean the system has failed.
That being said, we have to understand the context in which our right to privately own firearms was included. Its not about shooting deer, its not about burglars in the night. Its because governments are designed to opress. Thats what laws are, and its something we live with usually in harmony because opressing murderers, or theives or anything else like that is a good thing. But governmets do get carried away. In our own history the government has opressed slaves, Indians, Japanese, and laborers trying to unionize. Our founders recognized this would happen, and they wanted to include a safe guard against it.
In the year 2013, almost no one in this country has ever had to expierience the tyranny that our founders talked about. We have become complacent and belive that just because it hasnt happend in our lifetimes that it will never ever ever ever happen. Well you know what they say abut putting all your eggs in one basket....
I disagree with our government on a vast amount of issues. But, at the present time, I'd prefer to fight them at the ballot box rather then the battlefield. However, like I said, it would be foolish for any of us to think that this country could NEVER go the way of so many others and to turn in our guns. Its an option I hope and pray will never be needed, and right now I do not belive it is, nor will it likely be in the near future or even at all in my life. But its an option we should keep, because no one can see around corners or tell the future.
Governments are not 'designed to oppress'. That is a sadly ridiculous statement by you, and it disappoints me. Human societies organize themselves and we govern eachother- not just at the national level but at local levels and even non-institutional levels such as this little website; which has a governing body and bylaws that we are quietly acknowledging and agreeing to abide by, out of our own nature. These sacred 'framers' were men who were trying to form a more perfect union- a better government inspired by the ideals that seemed to be hinted by the Rennaisance but never yet carried out- that all men (sic) are free and have a right to self determination and 'ought' to have democratic government. In writing a constitution to establish such a government, these framers were not contradicting that very establishment by writing an amendment (the 2nd) to negate it. I urge- strongly URGE you to read its simple language- which says NOTHING about the violent overthrow of our newly created government, nothing about oppression, nothing about revolution- but merely states that we need a militia (an army!) and in addition the right to arms. It made sense because there wasn't a strong enough national army in the 10 year old nation to protect from outside invaders- that's what they mean by "a free State": you must understand the context of 1788- which WAS a very small United States which had only pushed the British back north of Lake Ontario, and were bordered by the French Empire and the entire colonial Spain- three of the WORLD POWERS of the age. To stay free- meaning FREE OF BEING RECOLONIZED or invaded by another European country, we need to be ready for a war. And today, a war is being waged. Using the very guns people have demanded they have a right to have- turned toward the innocent, the free, the weak, the helpless- and mass murder is taking place. Seeing this, what do the framers say? Do nothing!?!? No. They do not. And neither do I.
Alright, so, that was inappropriate phrasing. "Designed to opress" is an over reaction, and I should have used better terminology. My appologies. What I am trying to get across is that in many cases, we are in danger of legislating ourselves to death. It is nessecery to have laws and governance, as you said, orginization. but to let them get out of hand is where we tread tracherously close to dictatorship.
I am not saying the second amendment is ment to negate the rest of the constitution. Nor is it about overthrowing the government that the framers had designed. If that is how I came across, I once again appologize.
Neither of us can speak for the writers of the constitution, as they are all dead. The best we can do is use historical context to deduce what they might have had in mind. And we must keep in mind that not all of them were in agreement either. Through my studying of the subject, I have inferred one reasoning, and through yours, another. I may be wrong, or you may be, or we may both be wrong, or both right. The best any of us can do, over two centuries after these men have died, is guess.
Your idea does make sense, I will admit. And perhaps folks at the time did have that in mind. However, I can not ignore the specific words chosen by many of the founders of this nation in describing their thoughts on the subject. Of course, these men had just fought a revolution, and the sting of true tyranny was still raw for them. So it makes sense that would want to do whtever they could to make sure that their best shot at creating a fair and honest government would continue into the future. But they knew also that men are not perfect, and there was always the possibility that at some point it could fail. In the event that the government they had designed ceased to be, they wanted to give people a chance to protect the government they designed. Its not about overthrowing the fair and honest government bound by the constitution, its about ensureing that it stays that way.
As someone who had an armed guard in his school, I fail to see the problem here. The main thing that bothers me, is that these increased gun laws, aren't really going to solve anything. If someone is determined to shoot up a place, no amount of ammo or gun limitation is going to stop them and probably won't slow them down.
As to another issue, I've seen the second amendment as a check against government taking too much power, and when something is passed that restricts a citizens ability to protect himself against, not home invasion, but an out of control government, that is worrying. Considering how often it happened in history, what exactly is stopping it from happening again? Sure, that may not be the intention of those in office, but where there is a pool of power, there is always someone to exploit it. I thought the second amendment ensured that couldn't happen.
I speculated Obama's reelection would spark another civil war. It could make for a fantastic fiction. Let's hope it doesn't become history.
Also, I feel the need to correct something, because someone jumped on me for this, but America is a constitutional republic, not a democracy.
Actually, if you look at charts of levels of gun violence in comparison to countries with stricter gun laws, you'll notice something interesting. THe countries with stricter laws have less violence. America, with the most guns, is anywhere between 10th and 3rd for most gun violence.
In reality, gun violence is higher in the US, but crime rates are much higher in countries with stricter gun control. Murder per capita in the US is approximately 1 in 31,854, while the number is 1 in 4,329,225 in the UK. Crime per capita is roughly 1 in 25 in the US, 1 in 9 in the UK.
The US is tied for 9th place for assault victims, after the UK, New Zealand, Australia, Canada, Finland, France, Denmark, and Sweden. Surprise, surprise, they all have stricter gun control.
Hey, no hard feelings, this is just a pleasant discussion for the benefit of society. Actually, violent crime rates in the US is higher, whereas in Britain/mainland Europe it's mostly theft. I personally would rather be alive with my dignity in tact than be dead.
"If that happens, it's gonna spark a civil war, and I'll be glad to fire the first shot. ... I'm not letting my country be ruled by a dictator. I'm not letting anybody take my guns. If it goes one inch further, I'm gonna start killing people."
The thing I find most disturbing is the willingness to use violence against an elected system. Now some gun-nut might decide that tyranny has gone too far but others, maybe even the large majority, may disagree. Surely now said citizens can also use their right to kill this person that wishes to bring the end to the government through force? Welcome to the world where life is cheap.
Ever occur to you that none of this would be happening if gun owners were just left alone like they've always asked, instead of being treated like boogeymen every time an INDIVIDUAL does a mass shooting?
But it was a gun owners fault. The mother of the man who shot up Sandy Hook was irresponsible! Why wasn't that rifle locked up in a safe? Why was it so easy to get to? Gun owners don't want to admit that they are irresponsible. These madmen steal guns from gun owners who don't keep their guns locked up!
Do you know something I don't? Do you know the exact circumstances that the guns were acquired? All I know is that he killed his mother for them. For all we know, they were locked up and he just got the key.
And you're free to believe whatever you like, no matter how foolish.
He shot her in the face with the gun, he had the gun first.
I live in a very pro gun community, and they are hardly responsible. It's common for hunting rifles to be left in a persons car, in plain sight and it would be very easy for one deranged person to break the window and grab it.
I have also met a man who was utterly unstable, bi polar and a drunk who owned one of those rifles, and his idea of flirting with me was putting it in my hands, loading it, and letting me shake and sweat the fear of accidentally shooting it off into my neighbors 5 year old sons bedroom. Gun Owners have to be responsible for their weapons, and many aren't. It may be right, but there's a duty to it too.
"I live in a very pro gun community, and they are hardly responsible. It's common for hunting rifles to be left in a persons car, in plain sight and it would be very easy for one deranged person to break the window and grab it."
That someone could be you, couldn't it? Why don't we just save the trouble and throw you in jail...or better yet, execute you? See the problem with putting the punishment before the crime?
"I have also met a man who was utterly unstable, bi polar and a drunk who owned one of those rifles, and his idea of flirting with me was putting it in my hands, loading it, and letting me shake and sweat the fear of accidentally shooting it off into my neighbors 5 year old sons bedroom. Gun Owners have to be responsible for their weapons, and many aren't. It may be right, but there's a duty to it too."
You've identified ONE person out of over EIGHTY MILLION, so please grow up and quit pissing your diaper every time you see a gun (I also have only your word to go on, and you're far from objective). I've been handling guns since I was five and I'm as comfortable with them as I am with my kitten. Why? Because I use my brain and understand and respect them and I know how to safely handle them. Perhaps if you took the time to do that instead of being ruled by fear and paranoia, you might learn something.
So here lies the problem, you wouldn't condemn the killing spree someone went on, you'd condemn the government. What if someone decided taxes of any sort were an intolerable infringement? What if they thought the standing army intolerable? How about an elected Senate, the fact the EC votes are more a popular vote than being chosen by states etc etc.
It's very telling that you wouldn't condemn violent behaviour but would instead attack the victims. That is what is wrong.
So, asking for people who had ZERO hand in the actual crime people are wailing about to be left alone is now blaming the people who were actually attacked? It's not people saying "I had nothing to do with this, so why am I getting blamed?"?
You're saying that if they took armed action, and thus no longer are innocent bystanders, that the blame for their actions should lie with others and not them. Yes, you want to blame the potential violence of one group on another. There may be people who believe that gun control is right and the government is taking the correct action. They should also be allowed to use guns against the gun owners shouldn't they? Or does it only work 1 way with you?
"There may be people who believe that gun control is right and the government is taking the correct action.
No violation of man's rights is ever right, no matter how many people support it. How many times do I have to say that before it sinks in? Those who initiate the act of force that violates a right (in this case, a gun ban that violates the rights of gun owners) cannot lay claim to the right to be free from the use of force; you cannot claim a right you are violating.
Seriously, Rage, you're making a fool out of yourself even more than usual. You're essentially trying to say that no one is ever justified in using force to defend themselves, and if they do, the blame is on them, not on those who made the defense of rights necessary in the first place.
Don't confuse the NRA with the majority of gun owners that favor common sense gun legislation. The NRA is nothing more than a gun manufacturer lobbyist and waaaaaay out of step with average gun owners.
The more gun owners protest and whine in the face of common sense regulations, the more they prove they need them. And the more they spout wild paranoid conspiracy theories, the more they definitely prove they need them.
The irony, I guess. To me, a sane, responsible gun owner is one who is OK with proving he can own a gun responsibly just like he has to prove he can drive a car responsibly. A sane, responsible gun owner is one who both recognizes that the correct tool for changing our government is all of the possibilities our Founding Fathers baked into the Constitution for just that purpose. A sane, responsible gun owner is one that doesn't have silly fantasies of taking on the US Military with his shotgun. And a sane, responsible gun owner is one that didn't cheer on the police beating up the OWS people and say the OWS folks should have been shot (thus proving they actually do oppose genuinely dictator-like behavior).
"A sane, responsible gun owner is one who both recognizes that the correct tool for changing our government is all of the possibilities our Founding Fathers baked into the Constitution for just that purpose."
I am a strong proponent of fighting our government at the ballot box first and formost. If you cant toe the line of the Constitution you have sworn to uphold and defend, you get to find another job as far as Im concerned. Our votes are our FIRST line of defense against tyranny. Second is the hope that there are enough people in our government that DO take their job and my rights seriously enough to squash the ideas of others that aim to violate them. Sometimes however, that is not enough. It would be very nieve to assume that America is immune to despotism. that is why the second amendment was "baked" into the constitution. That is why after the constitution was drafted and signed in 1787, many of the states would not ratify it until after 1789 when congress finally included the Bill of rRights. “My great objection to this government is, that it does not leave us the means of defending our rights, or of waging war against tyrants.” exclaimed Patrick Henry. "Ought not a government, vested with such extensive and indefinite authority, to have been restricted by a declaration of rights? It certainly ought. Wrote "Brutus".
It is only out of severe complacency that people suggest that an armed citzenry is unessecery. Who knows what will happen in 50, 100, or 200 years? We may have no need to fight tyranny on the batlefield now, but of we allow our "liberties to be wrested from us" today, whos to say our descendants wont need it in the future?
I think you also missed the "A sane, responsible gun owner is one that doesn't have silly fantasies of taking on the US Military with his shotgun." part.
And the "And a sane, responsible gun owner is one that didn't cheer on the police beating up the OWS people and say the OWS folks should have been shot (thus proving they actually do oppose genuinely dictator-like behavior)." part.
As in, even if it was possible to take on the US Military with a shotgun, after the public reaction to OWS, I wouldn't trust the average gun-toter to recognize actual dictatorial behavior if it came up and Hitler'd them on the nose.
I would have thought that our "guns against the government" people would have recognized that even if they disagreed with OWS, the way OWS was treated was as close to dictatorial behavior as this government's gotten in modern times... but... nope, they cheered on the dictatorial behavior. That almost discredits the "guns against the government" meme right there.
I didnt miss them, I dont have any disagreement with them. No one should fantasize about overthrowing our government, or going to war in any fashion. Anyone who does is, in my opinion, ranked up there with McVeigh and Kazinski.
Anyone who thought that the way OWS participants were treated is in any way "good" has got a serious problem with me. In some instances, I'm sure, OWS folks broke the law, and those isolated cases ought to have been dealt with accordingly. The vast majority, though I disagree with their message, had every legal parameter to do what they did and any police officer or lawmaker who in any way violated the rights of American citizens to protest and petetion their government ought be dealt with accordingly.
Thing is, I saw all over the place, conservatives cheering on what happened, and even saying the police should have shot them or wishing they could go do it for them. Often the same sort of people you then see throwing up the argument about being worried about the dictators in government.
I'd say I could count the number of times I saw a non-military gun supporter saying anything like "I don't agree with what they say, but I think the police are wrong and I'd bring my gun to protect them from the government if it comes to that," on one hand... but that would require me having actually seen anyone say it. Well, I take that back, you're the first person I saw doing so. I sincerely salute you.
Incidentally, the fact that there were a number of military people who stood up for the OWS people gives me more confidence than the gun nuts do. Since it means the military is less likely to be on board with any case of the government really cracking down, and gives us an actual fighting chance. I feel that's the real determinant. If the military refuses to do anything or helps the citizenry, then we have a chance. If the military is convinced to help the dictatorship, then even our current level of citizen arming isn't going to help much.
I feel like I have to point at stuff like the Kent State shootings for what happens when the military doesn't like you protesting. Some of the people injured or killed weren't even aware of what was going on before they were hit, let alone in a position to defend themselves if they had guns, especially seeing as how all of the woundings were long-distance. Hell, one victim was even a member of the local ROTC!
I hate to sound defeatist, but... if you want to oppose a dictator grab, forget stalking up on the guns, start sucking up to your local troops.
I saw the exact same thing. It broke my heart and confidence, and in part, it helped me make the decision to break ties with many conservatives. the sheer hypocrisy of the whole situation was disgusting.
"Incidentally, the fact that there were a number of military people who stood up for the OWS people gives me more confidence than the gun nuts do."
I suppose then, it shouldnt surprise you that I have taken the oath of enlistment twice in my lifetime haha.
Seriously though, I take that oath VERY seriously, as does everyone I have and do serve with. We swore to uphold and defend the Constitution, and that is the at the very core of our purpose. It doesnt matter if we agree or disagree with you, if we think your brilliant or a coplete dumbass, our job is to protect the rights and the livleyhoods of American Citizens, and I gladly do so, no matter their politics or opinions.
I have proudly defended indeviduals as they cursed me and my fellow soldiers, while other Americans were so quick to attack them for not being "greatful." I hated to hear what they said about us, but at the same time, it was great because they CAN say whatever they want without fear of retribution.
There have been many cases where the military was used to protect an indevidual rather then the Constitution, and unfortunately there are people in power who think that is what we are for. Fortunately I have seved with enugh people over the past 6 years who know that the rights of Americans trump anything an elected offical thinks or wants that it gives me confindence that we are not bunch of brainwashed goons.
Admittedly I don't see much of a reason for the average person in a first world country to own a gun to begin with, but as long as the person has thoroughly proven they can use and secure their guns properly and isn't allowed to carry them all over the place, I'm not going to complain either.
Since when legal guns are hard to get a hold of even through theft, and I can tell instantly that someone I see armed out in public that's not an officer or soldier is a threat, it's a lot harder for criminals to have guns.
...because there are militants constantly leaving trails of bodies across Ammurkah and the gangs are wiping out entire neighborhoods.
"James Yeager, the CEO of a Tennessee company called Tactical Response. In response to the prospect of stricter gun laws, he posted a YouTube video saying, "If that happens, it's gonna spark a civil war, and I'll be glad to fire the first shot. ... I'm not letting my country be ruled by a dictator. I'm not letting anybody take my guns. If it goes one inch further, I'm gonna start killing people.""
Because the least intelligent resort to violence as a substitute for reasonable, informed, and mature responses.
"OK, so this guy is an extremist. But there are thousands, maybe millions, of gun owners out there whose sentiments are only a notch or two more restrained. These people talk a lot about liberty and freedom and love to call themselves patriots, but they seem to have a real problem with democracy. In a democracy, if people are proposing a law you don't like, you criticize it, you argue against it, you campaign against it, you vote against the politicians who support it. But if you believe in democracy, you don't threaten to start killing people if it passes. You don't say that if you don't like a new law, you'll start an insurrection to overthrow the government."
So if a majority of people voted for slavery to come back, blacks would be wrong to promise armed resistance (because, frankly, the only way you'd put them back into chains was at the point of a gun)? Their only options would be non-violent resistance, and if it ends up passing, too bad for them?
Democracy, ie majority rule, does not trump individual rights. The violation of a person's right to marry, own a gun (or any piece of property), or any activity that does not initiate the use of force against others is never moral, no matter how many people believe such things should be outlawed and vote to do so.
"The night before, the National Rifle Association released an ad calling Obama an "elitist hypocrite," because, the ad says, he's "skeptical about putting armed security in our schools, when his kids are protected by armed guards at their school." (Obama had said in an interview last month that he was "skeptical" that the "only answer" was putting more guns in schools.) Republicans and Democrats alike condemned the NRA for using the president's children in a political attack ad, but the ad was actually quite revealing.
A sane person might argue that the president and his family require special protection because they face threats the rest of us don't. But the NRA and many of its most fervent supporters don't see it that way. As far as they're concerned, all of us are just as threatened as the person in the Oval Office. The fact that you're an ordinary person and not the leader of the most powerful nation on Earth doesn't mean you haven't already been targeted by an al Qaeda death squad or a murderous drug gang, so you'd better be prepared, not just with a gun but with an entire arsenal of military-style weaponry."
Ever occur to you that what they're attacking is his statements casting doubt on putting guards in schools doing any good while having said guards protecting his own children? The hypocrisy is him saying it probably wouldn't work while actually relying on them.
Now what if the people who decided to use their guns to force the issue were a minority and acting against the wishes of the majority? Would they start killing all those who didn't support thier uprising? If so then what makes them any better than mass murderers? What if some gun nuts decided that being denied the right to own a minigun or M60 machine gun counted as an intolerable act against their rights and tried to overthrow the government using force? You seem to forget that what is considered acceptable varies and what makes one persons perception any more valid than anyone elses? In particular what then gives them the right to impose their views on the general population by armed force? Now THAT is tyranny.
If slaves had risen up to force the issue of ending slavery, they would've been acting against the wishes of the majority. If jews had risen up to force the issue of ending the Holocaust, they would've been acting against the wishes of the majority. Quit substituting numbers for morality and use your goddamn brain.
And would you mind not pulling BS examples that you have yet to prove have any goddamn validity out of your ass to hide the fact you can't make a reasonable point? My patience for such stupidity is extremely short and it's so pathetic I almost feel sorry for you.
And in case you haven't been paying attention to what's going on, it's the anti-gun crowd pushing its views on gun owners, who, as always, ask for nothing but to be left the hell alone.
Slavery wasn't ended because of violent action by slaves, anti-semitism wasn't ended by violent actions by Jews. BOTH occassions the respective groups solved their problems through dialogue. Nice try but historical revisionism won't work.
BS examples from a person who used 2 examples that ended without the respective groups using force? Oh the hypocrisy. My patience with your childish whining can go on so feel free.
"Be left the hell alone" -> "I'm going to be violent if you don't do what I say." Yeh because threatening violence ALWAYS wins support for your cause doesn't it? If the gun lobby wasn't so quick to threaten violence if action was taken against them maybe people would be more sympathetic. As it is, if someone is threatening violence against you the last thing you want is for them to have guns. It harms their cause more than helps it.
I damn well know that's not what happened. It's a HYPOTHETICAL SITUATION to challenge the idea that somehow, going against "the majority" is always wrong. It's to see just what the person pushing such thinking will say when confronted by the reality of it. If it's too complicated for you to understand that...well, I didn't invite you to respond, did I?
"BS examples from a person who used 2 examples that ended without the respective groups using force?"
Again, little boy, HYPOTHETICAL SITUATIONS. And unless you can point me to actual instances of people claiming they have a right to machine guns under the Second Amendment, you're just full of shit and grasping at straws to make a point you can't make with actual facts. That, my friend, is what constitutes a BS example pulled out of your ass.
"Yeh because threatening violence ALWAYS wins support for your cause doesn't it? If the gun lobby wasn't so quick to threaten violence if action was taken against them maybe people would be more sympathetic. As it is, if someone is threatening violence against you the last thing you want is for them to have guns. It harms their cause more than helps it."
I suppose the fact that with most of those alleged calls for violence, it's made clear they would only happen if the government clearly oversteps its authority (and an absolute ban on guns would constitute that under several Amendments in the Bill of Rights) doesn't matter? I suppose the fact that there's been no actual instance of a gun owner shooting first under the justification of stopping an oppressive government from taking his guns away doesn't matter?
And as I said, suppose if, after every mass shooter, the only thing that happened was the person who actually did the crime was gone after? Suppose there weren't calls for more gun control, or calls for violence against the NRA or gun owners? Suppose politicians didn't push gun bill after gun bill? Suppose gun owners didn't have to constantly prove they weren't a threat to society and that their rights are just as important as everyone else's?
Don't you suppose that if none of those things happened, gun owners wouldn't be to the point they are today?
All these scenarios are based on hypothetical situations so don't get bitchy with me for presenting other hypotheticals to challenge your stance, or do you want me to be a yes-man? It's funny really because I also tested you to see what you would say and your stance was actually to completely ignore the counter argument and go straight to the personal attacks, as you so often do.
"Again, little boy, HYPOTHETICAL SITUATIONS."
As were mine yet you dismissed them as bullshit. Do you try to use double standards or is it just natural to you? Your 2 situations with the Jews and slavery did not happen. If you use it as hypothetical scenarios (one of which I disproved in a different thread) then you have no right to get bitchy about me presenting my own hypothetical situations. Can you comprehend this?
"I suppose the fact that with most of those alleged calls for violence, it's made clear they would only happen if the government clearly oversteps its authority"
And what people perceive to be "overstepping it's authority" varies, hence MY hypothetical situations where a person perceives their liberty is threatened and will take violent action against an elected government and fellow countrymen. You refuse to take a stance on this yet your own position should be in support. You've already stated you support using violence against government if it oversteps it's mark yet you refuse to state where that mark is. This simply allows you to shift the posts whenever you please. If you are going to make that argument then present a solid definition of what constitutes government overstepping it's mark, otherwise it's simply individual interpretation. The right wing is so used to throwing words around like "tyranny" that they have lost any idea of what the word actually means. A tyranny is intolerable and if you think you are under tyranny and arms is the way to solve it then you should be out there fighting against the government. You aren't are neither are all the other people that throw around words like that. Clearly your idea of where the line is has not been passed and nor will it be passed with this new law.
I think I've made it clear what would constitute the government overstepping its authority time and time again (Here, I'll fucking spell it out for you one more time: INITIATING FORCE AGAINST PEOPLE WHO HAVE DONE NO CRIME). A complete ban on firearms would require the use of force to collect them, because there will be people who will not turn them in. If the government goes this route, and it doesn't matter how many people support it, it will be initiating force against people who have committed no crime whatsoever, ergo, said people would be within their rights to defend themselves.
I don't know how much more goddamn clear I can make it for you. Of course, it would probably help if you were actually objective and interested in learning, rather than already having your mind made up and just trying to be an ass about it.
"INITIATING FORCE AGAINST PEOPLE WHO HAVE DONE NO CRIME"
Which they have done countless times yet you are not up in arms. Do you think force should be used when it oversteps the mark or not? Also nobody is proposing a complete ban on firearms, that's just hyperbole.
Funny, you say I'm the one being an ass. You've made up your mind about it and you are throwing around your usual juvenile insults. Hypocrite much?
You completely demagogue the issue without supporting any FACTS what so ever. Since you declines to I will bring my own facts like these:
In 2012 Chicago had the toughest gun laws in the country yet 446 children where shot resulting in 62 deaths. Your gun grabbing fantasies are simply flat out wrong. Gun Control increases crime and makes people less safe. Gun control is like the drug war and prohibition. It just leads to more suffering and death while trampling the rights of the innocent. [link] [link]
Take away certain guns that are unnecessary in civilian life. And we won't have to fight the government because we live in the 21st century. Look at the countries that go through violent revolutions. It takes much longer and much more death and destruction when the revolutions are violent as apposed to peaceful revolutions.