posted on Mar, 11 2013 @ 02:43 PM
Originally posted by MystikMushroom
Wait, tax rebates for reducing crime?
Are you kidding me?
Look, I am not anti-gun at all...but giving people a tax rebate to be armed? Does this sound a little bat-S crazy to any other moderate-minded people?
I really try and stay out of this whole gun debate, but I had to say something about this.
Regular joes aren't trained to prevent crime. They may happen to stop a crime here or there, but giving them a tax rebate would probably encourage
vigilante justice (which it appears most you support?)
The historical reason for the Amendment was so that two things could happen:
1.) Citizenry could be armed and ready in the event of the need for defense (personal, state, country) and preclude the need for a standing army.
This was because of the fiscal burden imposed by a standing army and the threat from a standing federal army of becoming a tyranny. That is why the
powers of congress are limited to maintaining a standing federal army for two years.
2.) The power of an army was to lie exclusively in the militia (organized by the state and manned by the people) and never be usurped by the fed,
thus allowing the militia (i.e. the people) to defend themselves against a tyrannical federal government.
We're obviously past that point because there are federal laws regarding firearms (UNCONSTITUTIONAL because of "shall not be infringed") and the
overwhelming power lies in the federal government. It's a hard concept to grasp for most people, the thought of taking up arms against a federal
government, but that's how our system is built. I, personally, like it that way and feel like we not only have to stop these upcoming infringements,
but we also have to backtrack and get rid of the old ones.
So although I understand what you're saying, it wouldn't hurt to start working back toward support for placing power in the hands of 'the
edit on 11-3-2013 by lynxpilot because: my own idiocy