Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Journeyman
And in terms of weapons as a defense against tyranny being an obsolete argument: Where the fuck have you been for the past four years? Furthermore, where the fuck will we be in the next four years?
How will you respond in 20 or 25 years if the government decides to take away your right to vote, your right to speech, your right to basic citizenship when you strip yourself of your right to bare arms?
|
An "assault" weapon is not going to be any more effective against a suicide bomber than a handgun, shotgun or hunting rifle. So I don't see how excessively arming (in terms of weapon capability) the populace is in any way beneficial in the "war on terror". (Personally, I've never met a suicide bomber, nor has anyone I know - so the necessity of weapons in that regard seems very minimal.)
As for the concern over the gov't taking away the rights that define a democracy - well, as I mentioned, if you are slowly convinced it is necessary by virtue of filtered and manipulated information from the media, you're unlikely to object. Tyrants have learned a lot in the past 229 years. They're not going to get in your face and order you to obey, they're going to convince you that you need to support them.
There is a classification for weapons that sits between fully automatic and hunting/personal protection in terms of capability, and whether you want to label them as assault weapons or Really Dangerous Weapons That Aren't Quite As Dangerous As Fully Automatic Weapons™ - the question remains, is it realistically valuable or necessary for hunting or personal protection?