"Home Guy" wrote in message ...
"Attila.Iskander" wrote:

Try making that criminal vs citizen and you would be right.

All criminals are law abiding citizens - up until they commit a crime
that is.


Tautology
Most crime is criminal on criminal


There is very little LAW-ABIDING citizen on citizen crime...

Technically there is no such thing as law-abiding citizen-on-citizen
crime.

See battle of Athens, Tennessee for the counter

What's sad about that story is how the Cantrell clan ruled that county
for (it appears) the better part of a decade as their own little
kingdom, and all during that time the armed citizenry just stood by and
watched:


That's usually the case.
Most people are sheeple


You will note that in this case, it was not the federal or even state
gov't that was imposing tyranny upon the citizens of McMinn County.


So ?
Does it matter who imposes the tyranny ?

Tyranny is tyranny, no matter who imposes it.


snip

If given the choice between absolutely no private firearm
ownership (and hence no possibility for a domestic fire-arm
trade, products, black-market, etc) and the situation we
have now, who could argue that society wouldn't be better
off if NOBODY had guns?

When the law-abiding are disarmed it does NOTHING to disarm
the criminals

What weapons would the criminals have that the law-abiding citizens
would *not* have?


Anything available on the black market
Look at how effective gun-control has been in the last century
History shows that ANY form of prohibition is due for failure


I said that the genie can't be put back in the bottle. That means you
can't wave a magic wand and make all civillian guns (guns in the hands
of all types of citizens - criminals and otherwise) disappear.



Finally you got something right
Too bad you don't comprehend what it means.


But if you could - if no guns were ever available to anyone, that also
means criminals too.

who will then subjugate and terrorize the law-abiding.

With what?
Sticks and stones? Clubs and knives? Their fists?
The citizens can have those too.


Not everyone is strong or quick enough to use those successfully.
At 60, I sure as hell, am not stupid enough to get into a fistfight with
some punk 40 years younger than me.
I'll just shoot the goblin





And yet, the US, compared to just about any Western and
non-Western country, is one of the few countries that has
stayed the course more than 200 years in respecting
individual rights and freedoms..

This has got nothing to do with rights and freedoms.


It has EVERYTHING to do with rights and freedoms
All those other failures were all about a LACK of INDIVIDUAL rights and
freedoms



How can you explain that you have the right to own a gun - but not a
machine gun?


There you go being ignorant again
I do have the right to own a machine gun


Or a rocket launcher or bazooka or high explosives or all sorts of other
deadly / destructive products?


More ignorance
They don't qualify as "personal arms" as understood by the 2nd Amendment


Why aren't you crying foul that you can't buy hand grenades or land
mines?


More ignorance
They don't qualify as "personal arms" as understood by the 2nd Amendment


Or that you can't grow and smoke your own marijuana?

Why would I want to be a (stupid and ignorant) pot-head like you ?