That's what the police is for.bluethread wrote: Whoever threatens me or my family without due process. All gun owners are asking for is that they be left alone.
Okay, next time consider making your point elsewhere and not as a response to my point about assassination.Sorry, I was talking about the conversation between you and me, not the general discussion. To that point, I do not think that the purpose of the second amendment is to facilitate assassinations. It is to resist the imposition of tyranny in general. It is a resistance measure, not a proactive measure.
And it's a bad justification for the reason I put forward. This last resort, is not a resort of any kind, you have no chance against the US military. It's a cultural remnant from a different time. Go right ahead and get the constitution changed.My point was that, if one wishes to take armed resistance off of the table, one must change the constitution. Currently, according to the constitution, armed resistance to tyranny is the primary justification for the right to keep and bear arms. It is a last resort measure, but it is an option.
Wait, what current climate? You think a) there is a distinct possibility for Trump to turning his presidency into a dictatorship, and b) that he would somehow have the backing of the military?No, that does not outweight the threat of an armed uprising. It poses a more credible threat in the current climate.
You are going have to educated me on that, I've only heard Trump joke about gun owners shooting Hillary if she won. I know there are some pro-gun Democrats, but who on the left thinks an armed resistance is an appropriate response to the election?However, should the credibility of elections be undermined, as Hillary, Rachel and others suggest, armed resistance serves as a credible fall back position and it appears that some on the left agree with that. However, let's not bother with them, because they are PC, right?
Not exactly good examples to pick for making your case. My argument as usual, is that you are not going to win in a shoot out against the state, as clearly demonstrated by Kent State and Waco.At the moment and in general. However, I believe that it is the fact that we have an armed citizenry, with a history of private arms ownership, initially including battleships, that has preserved the principle of domestic nonintervention on the part of the military. The tendency for the government to violate this principle, i.e. Kent State and Waco, has been held at bay, not by the decrease in private arms ownership, but the increase in private arms ownership.
Let me suggest that you'd do more damage against the state with a home made bomb than an AR-15. You really do have better options than guns, even when it comes to last resort.Again, whoever threatens me or my family without due process, after other options have been exhausted. Yes, an armed citizenry is the option of last resort. However, if that option is preemptively removed, it is much more difficult, if not impossible, to reestablish that option.
That's a easy choice to make, I've already delegated that much given I've never owned a gun. Am I detecting a shift from the fighting tyranny argument into home defense argument?The bottom line is does one wish to take responsibility for one's own security, or does one wish to delegate that to a government instituted among men, who have their own priorities and may not realize that they derive their just powers from the consent of the governed.