Quote:
Originally Posted by BallzDeep
[You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]
Sadly this is where cognitive dissonance takes place. You must not do a lot of history research or understand gun laws at all.
If you are a private citizen and have a CHL in the state of Texas, there is no law that requires you to submit a gun for any registry. They have absolutely no idea how many guns are out there. People can also sell private individual to private individual. Thus, you now can't even track guns you knew where they used to be.
When Sheriff's have been asked to do round ups when Beto was voicing his opinion. A large majority were telling him to go fuck himself. Majority of the police and military are on the side of the idea of the second amendment and that doesn't only apply to muskets like some idiot here stated. The sheriffs stated that it would be an open suicide mission because they don't want their officers fighting citizens over a right to defend themselves. It would cause more violence then mass shootings.
On your third point. You are completely neglecting that we are a country that came from a Tyrannical government and was overthrown by allowing citizens to own firearms. Since they had seen what tyrannical governments are capable of over an individual, they realized that individual freedoms trump the government. A mass shooter can kill maybe hundreds of people, a government can kill millions.
If it were ever to come down to people having to defend their civil liberties, you would quickly find that majority of the police and military would be on the side of the civilians (they want to own firearms as civilians as well) and it wouldn't be a lopsided battle for the citizens to regain the upper hand since there are as many guns in the US as people.
No government is going to immediately drone strike their people otherwise they would get the same treatment as the uproar from the boston massacre.
|
I want to point out, I'm not actually anti-civilian guns, I'm just disputing some of the points Tepplar is using to support his position.
The Tyranny was overthrown as 1) the revolution supported by another, antimonarchist, super empire. 2) The Tyranny thought the long term strategic move was to protect 'spice' colonies rather than 'sugar' so didn't invest in securing the sugar colony as much as it could. 3) The Tyranny believed it could still protect it's interests in the sugar colony without direct governance.
Furthermore, 'allowing the people to own firearms' was irrelevant to overthrowing the government: they were going to have firearms regardless of whether it was allowed or not, especially as the revolution was supported by a foreign superpower (props to La France for inspiring so much modern American foreign policy).
Historically revolutions need to either subvert the army, or have extensive support from a foreign power. Perhaps with the communication opportunities provided by the internet that will change and a few scattered militia with civilian grade fire arms can stand up to a tyranny, but I doubt it.
11-15-2019, 03:17 PM
Linear Mode
