|
Did you just use 'bolster' and 'spurious' on an internet forum? No need to impress. I want everyone to understand what we're trying to say.
Governments in the past have used this tactic to tear its citizens away from their freedoms in the past, but what we are talking about is THIS government. Thus the homosexual correlation. What I was trying to point out is that with the comparison was that things that have happened in the past do not always repeat themselves. If the US government were to, hypothetically, take away gun rights from its civilians, I don't think it will be an act to control. It would most likely be a last resort against gun violence. Understand? I suppose what you were trying to tell me in so many words was that you wouldn't trust the American government if they were to take away our gun rights. We can agree to disagree on this one because neither one of us could possible prove our side conclusively. Bottom line, I beleive that your assumption that because other civilizations have used a gun ban as a tool for control, the US would would use a gun ban as a tool for control is just as baseless as my comment on gay marriges (which, by the way, I have no opinnions on either way) connection to governmental colapse. They are both government implemented rules that could be considered an act of control, and both have had disasterous results in the past. It's really not such a spurious correlation when you think about it in those terms. It is in these terms when the comparison becomes valid to the argument on the whole.
Kurtz: Interesting point. Thank you for not hiding behind the second amendment. I hadn't thought of gun ownership rights as in 'life, liberty, and the persuit of property (happyness?)'. Oh well, I'm tired of speechafying. Goodnight.
|