All I said was this:
Quote:
|
It's yet another example of the right to bear arms ending in tragedy not to mention proving yet again that government oppression isn't stopped by arming the populace, it just makes it more brutal.
|
There's nothing I refuse to understand - those people were going to be oppressed whatever the law - What rights they had was immaterial, the government, who gives you all these rights in the first place, saw fit to take them away when it suited them - and arms failed to help the people under attack. That's all I was saying.
You can argue your highly charged moralistic points about inalienable rights and freedoms - but as has been shown here, it makes no difference, when it actually gets down to it. If the government wants to oppress you, they will. And they do. Whether you wave a gun at them or not. As shown here.
I'm not commenting on the rights or wrongs of this case, or to pin the blame on anyone - I was just pointing out that the argument that having an armed populace in order to counter government oppression, in practice anyway, is flawed.
I admire your idealism, I just tend to view these things more practically I guess. Do you now understand my point?