Join a violent revolution
Start a National Petition to repeal the act
Move out the Country
Go on with my life and comply with the new law
Other - state opinion below
Neither side in an argument can find the truth when both make an absolute claim on it.
It was important in those days. The founders believed that and they were right. In those days the military's main weapon was the musket- same like any joe blow would have. But the world changed. That isn't true anymore.
Stepping away from that...I believe the founding fathers would PUKE on anyone that would willingly disarm themselves and expect someone else to provide for their own security and the safety of their families.
It is dunderhead talk and one the public would radically oppose, as would the government. Tens of millions believe what the government did at Waco with the Branch Dravidians was horrifically wrong. Even a jury found so. I did. Yet the public profoundly opposed Timothy McVey resorting to his act of terrorism against the government. My view as to kill the SOB. So was the view of the vast majority, regardless of the "injustice" of government he was retaliating against.
It is known how the government always has and will react to revolution, violent or non-violent. The oft excessive opposition to the non-violent OWS the most recent example.
The government and citizens both don't just have muskets face off with each other with now. The government has vast spying networks, massive numbers of law enforcement and military at all levels. Mini-guns and F16, tanks and helicopter gunships. Angry citizens revolting with their banana clip AR15s over the their right to keep them would either surrender or die quickly. And, like McVey, the vast majority of Americans would cheer their capture or deaths.
If you can't keep your rights as you see them within the structure of our democratic republic - such as however it is - you will lose those rights. Democracy by design is ongoing NON-VIOLENT revolution.
If you cannot win in our non-violent democratic election-revolution-option system, you absolutely cannot win by violence. The response to violent revolution is you get blown away. And you should. If you want to try to secure and hold your "rights" with weapons and violence, there are numerous countries you could move to where that is how rights are fought over.
Here's the reality in the USA. Most people just want to live their lives, raise their kids, have a secure income, decent house and food, some hobbies, their Internet, cell phone and TV. They just want to live their own lives. When someone starts shooting? The overwhelming number of people want that person or group completely eliminated ASAP anyway possible. They won't care why the person is shooting. The shooting endangers them so they want that person or group wiped out right away.
People wanting AR15s, 50 cal sniper rifles and such because they may have to fight the government is a major reason both the government and many people don't want anyone having those weapons. It's bad PR for the 2nd Amendment to claim weapons are needed to protect our rights from the government. You protect your rights at the ballot box. In THIS country you protect your rights with words and votes, not bullets and bombs.
Last edited by joko104; 01-17-12 at 09:01 AM.
The only revolution that could possibly succeed in this country would be if it had overwhelming military support in pro-active ways. Either way, private citizens' AR15s would add up to irrelevancy in that fight. And a military coop would not see the military handing out weapons to citizens, but taking them away. A military take-over rarely brings enhanced civil rights.
Last edited by joko104; 01-17-12 at 09:08 AM.
The actual purpose of the 2nd amendment is exactly what is says - specifically to maintain a militia and in a time when the government maintained essentially no military and even minimal law enforcement personnel. It says nothing about self defense from criminals.
People can debate and vote on gun rights issues. However, most claims of a constitutional right or intent of the "founding fathers" isn't accurate.
Considering one of the intents of the 2nd amendment to stop a tyrannical it is not bad PR to claim that weapons are need to protect our rights.What you are claiming amounts to saying it is bad PR to say that a car is for driving or that it is bad PR to say that oranges are orange.People wanting AR15s, 50 cal sniper rifles and such because they may have to fight the government is a major reason both the government and many people don't want anyone having those weapons. It's bad PR for the 2nd Amendment to claim weapons are needed to protect our rights from the government.
"A nation can survive its fools, and even the ambitious. But it cannot survive treason from within. An enemy at the gates is less formidable, for he is known and carries his banner openly. But the traitor moves amongst those within the gate freely, his sly whispers rustling through all the alleys, heard in the very halls of government itself. For the traitor appears not a traitor; he speaks in accents familiar to his victims, and he wears their face and their arguments, he appeals to the baseness that lies deep in the hearts of all men. He rots the soul of a nation, he works secretly and unknown in the night to undermine the pillars of the city, he infects the body politic so that it can no longer resist. A murder is less to fear"
Cicero Marcus Tullius