07-31-2012, 03:52 PM
(07-31-2012, 02:38 PM)Midwest Spy Wrote: Yes, I get the whole idea of the right to bear arms so a populace will not be crushed by a tyrannical govenment.
When you say government is the mass murderer, are you saying OUR government? Or are you referring to Syria, Egypt, Libya and countries like them?
As I stated earlier, there never will be any law that would ban guns. Won't happen. However, if there's potential legislation that would somehow make it more difficult/impossible for even ONE looney tune to ge their hands on a gun/ammo, while INCONVENIENCING law abiding citizens, then I'M FOR IT.
Sure, I include our government in that. Certainly not to the degree of the communists or Central and South American juntas but, yes, there have been abuses at home and wars of aggression ARE mass murder (no matter that it's justified in pursuit of empire).
If you have laws that prohibit "loonies" from getting weapons, the first thing you take into consideration is who is defining "loony". I guarantee it won't be limited to the batshit crazy. You are talking about PRE-CRIME, here, so what will be the criteria to strip certain people of their right to bear arms? Prior military service (Janet Napolitano and the Southern Poverty Law Center claim vets are potential 'domestic terrorists')? People who have taken anti depressants? Political dissidents? Tea party members (the left has tried to blame the Giffords shooting AND Aurora on the tea party (political opposition)?