Quote:
Originally Posted by timalkin
Strange how the left has this fascination with weapons of mass destruction in the hands of private citizens. I don't know any fellow gun-owners who would care to have such things. We just want people to stop trying to take away what we already have. It's pretty simple.
|
It's the Second Amendment, not us. We're simply using the same axiom you use to excuse owning guns.
Quote:
Originally Posted by timalkin
I think we'd all get a lot more accomplished if we focused on what really matters: Guns in the hands of criminals. Why don't you take your gun-hating and focus on the people who are out there committing crimes with guns? Leave the law-abiders alone. We haven't done anything wrong, hence "law-abiding."
|
Do you think criminals can get guns because there are too many gun laws?
Quote:
Originally Posted by timalkin
If you don't think an armed populace can get anything done against a modern military force, I suggest studying Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan, or any resistance movement in the last 50 years or so.
|
The shrapnel in my uncle's abdomen from Vietnam and the reason a family friend has a leg blown off isn't guns, it's bombs. Do you think the Vietcong could have won with only guns? Or should we legalize bombs?
Quote:
Originally Posted by timalkin
Even if armed American citizens could never stand up to the military power of the government, why should guns be taken away from law-abiding citizens? I sense a lack of trust, like gun-owners are too stupid to realize that they own things that can kill people.
|
I'm not arguing to take away guns. I'm questioning the logic of having them. There's also a question as to whether or not the Second Amendment, as it was originally intended, is still relevant. Of course at the core is still the simple issue: Barack Obama is the last person gun owners need to be afraid of. He's a centrist. He could be more progressive in Illinois because Chicago is fairly progressive, but as POTUS, he will be a centrist.