Quote:
Originally Posted by shakran
I fail to see where his argument was effective. It illustrated an impossible situation (untrained people with tiny guns prevailing against the best-trained military in the world with big guns) and then put forward a "we gotta do it in case the government gets oppressive" argument, which might be valid if it weren't for the fact that the government is already oppressive to an Orwellian degree, and no one's shooting.
|
His argument wasn't one of the peoples uprising success, it was one of how many people are you willing to kill. Some people here might be quite comfortable if 800,000 people have to die to promote a totalitarian state of a big government nanny state. Lots of others are not.
Quote:
Originally Posted by shakran
Are you seriously suggesting the public should have all along been acquiring tanks and RPGs? Where did you think we were going to get the money for it? Or are you suggesting that we shouldn't have given the government the money for weaponry, in which case we'd currently be under Soviet control .. .
|
What I was specifically referring to was the NFA of 34, then later the GCA of 68, and even later, the post 86 machine gun ban. This applies credibility to the anti argument of 'who needs a machine gun or assault rifle', simply by reciting a discredited theory that the 2nd Amendment applied only to the military, police, and national guard.