It has happened in oppressive, authoritarian regimes, yes. I'm not convinced it would happen here because for all of this country's faults, I don't see it as a further example of such a body of government. That, again, bears out our (you and I's) fundamental differences of political opinion that are most likely going to remain inherently futile to argue.
Hmm. I was referring to here, actually; forgive me for not being so precise.
The precursor to the assault rifle, the machine gun is either illegal or toughly regulated all throughout the U.S., so that's one example of it having happened here. Tommy guns were made completely illegal for civilians, if on no basis other than the magazine it is associated with was used by the Mafia I do believe (which like all high-capacity magazines the particular magazine was known to jam, making it hard to use even by the Mafia). Then you have Washington, D.C., where it was illegal for civilians to own any kind of firearm prior to the recent SCOTUS ruling.
Then there are the hundreds of thousands of Japanese-American citizens that got imprisoned during WWII because of "national security" reasons. Just recently, Obama issued an assassination on an American citizen at that (Anwar al-Aulaqi) and like the previous administration, his reserves the right to kill anyone else found on their kill list (which is updated regularly by the CIA, and probably the FBI too).
(Just a link about the assassination:
http://www.worldcantwait.net/index.php/home-mainmenu-289/6265-confirmed-obama-authorizes-assassination-of-us-citizen)
So there's plenty of precedence in this country for tyranny to take over, even if you can assume it hasn't.
On the other hand, did you know Hitler did not conquer Austria through violence? What Hitler did, he was invited to rule them by their own freewill. The Austrians saw the booming economy of Germany, and felt the only way they could get out of their economical troubles was through accepting Hitler as their ruler. Likewise has happened here at every election.
So of course there are those saying, "well what's the point if no one does anything?" No one does anything because everyone is being kept divided; no one is taking the first step because they feel they're alone; everyone feels alone because they don't see any action. It's a self-fulfilling prophecy, albeit capable of easily being stopped but only through general enlightenment of the populace.
Then there's the pop culture world, too. Guns are being demonized, left & right, in pop culture (ironically, just as this very thread shows individuals that consider it ideal to restrict certain weapons or others thinking all guns should be banned). Sure, we have our gun culture, but at the same time they're being demonized through kids (that could otherwise be self-defending law-abiding respectable individuals) being taught left-n-right about guns being evil & how they can somehow kill. Add in false flags like James Holmes & Adam Lanza, and you got a suitable environment to ban guns. (As they say: the pen is mightier than the sword.)
LOL, for you to tell me I'm being "more reasonable" than other members of another group is actually amazing in a good way to me. I'm also not trolling or being an ass, I'm being serious. You're a hard one to sell to, which isn't a bad thing.
Glad to hear...
As for my use of "need", I believe I made it clear that my preferences shouldn't necessarily stand in for legislation, in the same way that many anti-abortion folk say that there is no "need" for legal access to it because it's God's will. As I said, I have no illusions or even distant dreams of repealing the Second Amendment and anyone who advocates for it I think is missing the mark as well. What I want is a sound approach based in logic and not knee-jerk reactions - and that goes for both sides of the equation.
All gun owners I know personally are responsible and mentally sound. I don't see why they should lose access to their weapons. I'm also not one of those who is with any sort of delusion that tightening gun laws will mean that criminals will abide. That's why I firmly believe ownership of weapons for self-protection. I think that the answer is going to have to lie in a multifaceted approach, which includes an overhaul of the mental healthcare system, for one thing. An assault weapons ban won't fix the whole problem, and I've never stated as much.
No prob., I'm just tired of "need" being used as a basis of what's right or wrong or why one feels what is right or wrong.
Well, exactly my point. An educated populace wouldn't need guns to get them out of such a situation because an educated populace wouldn't allow themselves to be put in that situation in the first place. To defend against crime, I can see, to defend against the American government, not really. The Forefathers wrote the 2nd Amendment, and they had it right, for the time that they lived in. It was a dangerous time, and everyone owning a gun was a viable option.
It still is quite a dangerous time, even concerning government. See what I said above to Docta Corvina.
Well, this could be debatable. By defending the right for everyone to own a gun, you are essentially defending the 2nd Amendment for the very reasons it exists. If you mean that I see you as the same as Alex Jones or any of the like, then no, I don't, you don't come across as an idiot.
What I mean is
I don't need a constitution to tell me right from wrong. I'm only defending any constitutional amendment insofaras they were based on John Locke's
Natural Law, and many other works of the Enlightenment and still continue to this day.
I'm not for gun abolishment, that's just unrealistic and I do think guns can serve a purpose in a civilian's hands, but I am for gun control and monitoring. Walking into a Wal-Mart with 40 bucks and walking out with a rifle and a gun permit is ridiculous. I do think the American government is going in the wrong direction with how they are dealing with it (I.E Ban on certain amount of ammo) and it just gets more detrimental as everyone overreacts even worse then before with every shooting.
But you would be for gun abolishment if you found it were legislatively possible, no?