Do you own a firearm, AAA? For someone so smart on a whole range of issues in politics, you are surprisingly ignorant on this one. Advocating that everyone should be able to buy flamethrowers (or bazookas, etc) just gives ammunition to the anti-gun crowd to push their agenda. It allows them to go "See? They're totally off their rocker - they think it's just fine for people to own flame throwers." That's precisely what Ricter just proved at your expense. The reason a flame thrower shouldn't fall under the same category as a gun is because a gun is perfectly designed for personal protection. It is compact (hand held without external apparatus or appendages), perfectly efficient (with training) at killing the enemy and no one other than the enemy with very little collateral damage (again, with training). It is instant, it is easily used, and it is relatively inexpensive. The argument of "well why can't we just give people bazookas or flamethrowers, or tanks, etc" is because while each of those can kill, they are not designed for self-defense on a personal scale. They are subject to significant collateral damage, require a lot more investment and training, and are meant for "mass casualties". The 2nd amendment was never designed to give people the ability to cause mass casualties and carnage. It was designed to oppose tyranny and protect oneself, one's family and one's property. When you imply that people should be able to torch a mob outside their store, you've gone beyond protecting oneself and entered mass murder. And you give the liberals all the ammo they need to point at you and say "See? Told ya!" I maintain that this issue - the right to bear arms not being infringed - like many other issues, can only be won on facts and common sense. It cannot be attacked from the right with the same tactics the left uses (just opposite stances with no logic). The facts are in favor of our position. Use them, wisely.
That's right, and opposition to a tyranny armed with tanks and drones is futile with mere rifles and sidearms.
TT, lighten up man. I was joking. And I never advocated mass murder. I said if you laid down some flames, the mob would back off. By contrast, pointing a weapon is a deterrent only if they believe you will use it. You are legally only allowed to use deadly force against an imminent threat to your life. A politicized prosecutor in some hellhole like Baltimore is never going to buy that a mob posed such a threat, even if they are burning down your store or home. And in a mob situation, you can't really afford to wait until they are beating you to use force, so you have a real quandry. Politically, I'm not interested in debating this issue. My position is "Not one damn inch." That is how far I am prepared to compromise. Any pol who deviates will not only not get my support, but can expect a primary challenge. The argument that we should compromise and accept "common sense" reforms is bogus, because every compromise by us is the floor for more compromises. A true compromise would be the gun grabbers agreeing that they would cease trying to disarm us if we agreed to something, but they can never credibly make that promise any more than they can promise to cut spending if we raise taxes.
No, it's not. When millions have guns - and those operating tanks and drones are part of the people (ie, Oathkeepers), then it's a lot harder to keep the people down than it is if you disarm them.
I don't give an inch on gun rights either. But I also do it without hyperbolic debate. However, if you were just joking about the flame thrower, then I apologize.
There should be a lesson in history here. The first thing a dictator does is disarm the people. The dictator does this so his party hooligans (e.g. Brownshirts) can attack the people the government desires to get rid of. Naturally the disarmed victims can not defend their businesses, homes and families. Dictatorial governments do not tend to directly attack their civilian victims inside their own country with military forces - they send out the government thugs. Take a look at the many examples of this in the past 100 years including the communist takeover of Eastern European nations after WW2.
Great point. Chavez did that in Venezuela. Obama did it in Ferguson and Baltimore. The democrats did it in Wisconsin. Start small and work up.
Indeed. One can't help but think, too, of the hundreds of puppet dictators installed by the various colonial powers, on every continent, over the centuries.