the founding fathers were very short sighted.
king george was defeated by the time the 2nd amendment was put in.
i can see their argument, if they were still under the rule of king george and king george wanted to remove all guns so they would be easier to
oppress, but now you're worried your own countrymen will oppress you.
which is possible, but doesn't the second amendment arm also your enemies within united states.
an unarmed people is also easier to sway into the hands of a dictator like hitler thru a flase flag like the reichstag fire.
americans are confusing independence with having a gun. they are not mutually exclusive. a gun is used to defend life and freedom, but once
you have it, you can put that gun safely in a locker.
waco texas was possibly a preview of things to come, regardless of what you think of koresh and his crimes, the whole thing started because the
fbi and the atf went to get his guns and he believed he had a right under the second amendment to have it and fought back.
that is what appears to have happened. by why didn't other texans rush in and help. so much for defending the 2nd amendment, he got
slaughtered and the fbi killed dozens of children, even though the start of the fire is disputed, with children involved they should have waited
them out, not smash a tank thru the building.
where did the fbi and atf have to go, they had the resources to wait them out for years.
but the point is, when they come for your guns you'll be alone if waco is any indication. then you have a choice to make, is the second
amendment worth killing, fighting and dying for.
you can always get a new gun, and it'll be your conscience that dictates how you use it, not the constitution.
but the right course of action in a democracy is to use the courts. if they come for your guns hand them over, and fight it in the courts,
that's why its there for and it's much less bloody.
edit on 10-1-2013 by randomname because: (no reason given)