Quote:
|
Originally Posted by dksuddeth
tank ownership by the people of switzerland is not even considered because the government is held in proper check by an armed populace.
|
Then I suppose we can say the same here? Carrying a sword isn't considered because the government is held in proper check by an armed populace? Kinda convenient doncha think?
Quote:
|
yet we license teenagers to drive, we only have to renew them every few years, elderly folks who can barely see still drive until their next test several years away. People try to 'apples and oranges' this type of argument but a car is just as deadly as a gun in the wrong hands. More people are killed by automobiles than they are by a accidental handgun discharge. More children are killed by abusive parents/stepparents yearly than they are by accidental discharges.
|
And if you search the right threads in here you'll see that I've always advocated a MUCH tougher driver education, training, and licensing system. I agree with you that it's far too easy to get permission to drive in this country, and far too many people die as a result.
Quote:
|
which is why we, as a civilian population, would never be stupid enough to 'dress ranks' and try to outshoot a tank head on. The term IED comes to mind.
|
Well hell I can make an IED without having a gun. And since guns are useless against what the military has, why not just make a bunch of bombs if it becomes necessary.
Quote:
|
why are people afraid of their neighbors being armed?
|
Because the majority of people who own guns aren't interested in getting enough proper training to own them safely. If you carry a gun, safety procedures should be second nature. You should be able to hit the center ring nearly EVERY time. Otherwise you're risking someone else's life for your false sense of security.
Quote:
|
It USED to be that we knew these people, had block parties, barbecues, 4th of july picnics....isolationism should not infringe upon the rights to defend ones self.
|
that's not relevant. It's not because I don't know them. It's because they aren't proficient enough with something that, if misused, could accidentally kill me.
Quote:
|
How many 'militias' were attacked/hounded/arrested/and prosecuted by the clinton administration? These were people who banded together to do exactly as you think that is required by the 2A and yet were villified for that very reason. There is no pleasing a truly anti-gun individual so why should we bother? we'll remain isolated until there comes a truly desperate time for us to band together. All I can do is look at the post katrina gun grab...i'll bet that most of those people wish they would have banded together....what do you think that would have looked like had that 'militia' engaged the national guard following an illegal order?
|
I can only assume you're referring to Waco with your first question. If so, that was wrong, and the administration, the attorney general, and the ATF have admitted they screwed up bigtime. It should never have happened.
But I do have to point out that, if the Branch Davidians had not been able to get guns, they wouldn't have been raided over their little arsenal.
And it just goes to prove my point again. These guys were armed to the teeth and yet they still all died. Why? Because with modern weaponry, citizens can no longer arm themselves sufficiently to ward off a modern army.