"harry" wrote in message
...
On Dec 1, 12:16 am, "Attila.Iskander"
wrote:
"Home Guy" wrote in
...
Tom Horne wrote:

Gun ownership and carrying a gun is a right intended to make it
more difficult for the government to subjugate the citizenry.
It was Thomas Jefferson who said ""When the people fear their
government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the
people, there is liberty."

I would argue that the vast majority of US gun owners do not know the
underlying reason why the "right to bear arms" is in the constitution.

But regardless, the US is way past the point that an armed citizenry
makes for an effective counter to gov't tyranny. The original framers
could not contimplate that US citizens would one day have more to fear
from something called the "IRS" or a "personal credit score" - forms of
tyranny that can not be fought back with a gun (or musket).

Did the framers ever forsee or even imagine that civilian gun ownership
would take a bigger toll in citizen-vs-citizen conflict (injury, death
and misery) - and NOT citizen-vs-gov't conflict?

Try making that criminal vs citizen and you would be right.
There is very little LAW-ABIDING citizen on citizen crime...

Where has the right to bear arms ever served US citizens in countering
gov't tyranny during the entire existance of the country?

It was a stupid idea from the start - the gov't will always give itself
more and bigger guns if it thinks it needs it. Just ask the people of
Waco Tx.

See battle of Athens, Tennessee for the counter

"when the government fears the people, there is liberty."

No.

When the gov't fears the people, it buys more and bigger guns. And it
x-rays them at airports. And it taps their phone lines. And it passes
laws allowing the military to be the new police.

It also need to have those people see citizens as the enemy
Most police and military, being on the right, have a far better grasp of
Constitutional issues than most.
They also have sworn an oath to protect the Constitution, NOT the
government.

but that does not make it a good idea to try to take away the
basic right that every American has to keep and bare arms.

And a lot of good the exercise of that right has given you over the
years.

But the genie can't be put back in the bottle.

All we can really do is argue the merits of what could have been.

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?

Only idiots ignorant of history
When the law-abiding are disarmed it does NOTHING to disarm the
criminals who will then subjugate and terrorize the law-abiding.

After all, we know from several hundred years of past experience that
an
armed US citizenry was and is totally ineffective against it's own
gov't.

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..

Your abyssal ignorance of history is sad to see.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

The USA is a fascist state that has killed hundreds of thousands of
inoccent people.
It started with the indians and the latest were the Iraqis.

At no point has it respected individual rights and freedoms.
It was founded on slavery. The White house was built by slaves.
It was started for, and exists only for, the purpose of enriching it's
minority of wealthy citizens.

yawn
harry the dolt marxist from England spews again