So coming back to your original point, the mere act of owning a firearm doesn't infringe on anyone's freedom from 'tyrannical actions of the individual' or violence. Because violence requires action. You can't just say "the potential of harm is just too high"
Firstly, it would be impossible for a tyrant to realistically emerge in the US due to separation of powers. Secondly, if a tyrant were to somehow emerge, *and* have full support of military, what would an AR-15 possibly do against a F-22?
-
-
Ok, so you apparently haven’t been witnessing the dissolution of separation occurring over the past 30 years. And how much do F-22s cost to operate? And how likely is their use to trigger increased resistance and insurgency? Ya gotta think these things through...
-
A first line of civil defense establishes a hedge against initial escalation. If that weren’t true, we’d already have extremely strict gun laws like many other countries that didn’t possess cultures of armed self-defense and a philosophical history of institutional distrust.
- 13 more replies
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.