HrkDrv Apologise for not being succinct
Straw man. Every democracy is only one election away from tyranny
.
Borderline ad hominem? Based on what fact.
I don't follow your first sentence at all. But I see you trot out the red herring of "danger to innocents". The "if it saves one life" mantra is getting tired. Human life is precious, and should be considered as such, but not precious enough to sacrifice the liberty of 325 million for one.
Sorry. Obviously we that are not Americans cannot follow the mindset that justifies the bearing of arms even when children die from accidents but would like to understand this mindset. Much the same as the rational logic behind suicide bombers escapes me but if I had been raised somewhere in the Middle East then I might. However the one thing I am fanatic about is fanatic's. There is no logic or reasoning to be applied with fanatics and from what I have seen it would be very difficult to say that some gun bearing Americans are not fanatics. Please do not take this to infer this is anyone that I have read on this thread. Certainly do not believe I have stated “if it saves one life” mantra.
I believe those who say this really mean to say that you don't understand the American Constitution. As someone else already wrote, rights are not granted to us, they are acknowledged and the government is specifically prohibited from compromising them. It is a concept foreign to most, but ingrained in the American psyche - if you cannot accept that, that's fine, but don't play 'holier than thou' because you don't understand our rights.
Couldn’t agree more but see above. I am trying to understand and do not see any holier than thou attitude.
Borderline straw man & ad hominem - two for one! I never said I didn't trust my government. To borrow a phrase from Reagan, trust but verify. They are elected, but as you concede up front power corrupts and good intentions often end poorly. It is not mistrust of the government, per se, rather, it is a wariness of human nature.
Carry a gun and that wariness goes away?
I've been waiting for this one. This is straw man and red herring all rolled into one. First, if our government won't use nukes on terrorists, rogue nations, or anyone else, what makes you think they'll point them inwards? That's irrational and proves the fallacy of "what will you do against nukes" silliness. Secondly, if it were to get to the insurrection point, or even a catastrophic failure/collapse of the entire system due to financial/energy/terrorism/natural disaster/whatever, an unarmed populace is far easier to control than an armed populace. After hurricane Katrina, they did confiscate guns, so there is recent precedent right here in our own back yard. And the battle of Athens is another incident in our history where it was necessary for the populace to rise up. Had they been unarmed, it wouldn't have turned out as it did. So your straw man and red herring also include a wee bit of inferred ad hominem.
Possible misinterpretation. My point being that guns do not trump tanks, artillery, aircraft missiles etc. So the tongue in cheek question was whether the people advocating guns will prevent tyranny, have something else besides guns to do so.
Straw man. Nobody said that and it's not comparable to the al-awlaki case insofar as when in the midst of a shooting, there are exigent circumstances. Al-alwlaki cruising in his car in Yemen with his family, not so much. And you're trying to compare instruments of state power projection with local law enforcement. There is a deep chasm of difference between the two. The question the FBI director was answering was can the state pick citizens for assassination, not if a cop can stop a felony in progress using the continuum of force up through lethal. Improper comparison.
No you give me too much credit. I am not trying to draw comparisons between state power and law enforcement. Wariness of human nature starts to see shadows everywhere and..... on occasions you will be right.
I have no idea what post 231 has to do with your statement, so cannot comment
.
Just the example given by you I feel is pertinent. The use of an “illegal” fire arm to protect oneself with the result the victim becomes the criminal is an abuse/misuse of the justice system.
You seem to assume I'm just headed out the door to start an armed insurrection and that I trust nobody. Trust, but verify. Elect and monitor. Process and review. Nobody has "actioned" the insurrection, well-intentioned or otherwise. I will concede that one man's freedom fighter is another man's terrorist and whose side is right may be subject to interpretation. Best you leave that for the Americans to figure out for the Americans. If it should ever come to pass, and I sincerely hope it does not, history will judge the actors and outcomes. No sense in you trying to prejudge for everyone.
Very happy to leave it to the Americans to do as they will. But being what we are, somewhat educated reasonable thinking people, trying to see the other side by having a discourse. Some logical reason as to why it is so. There are posters who have stated it is my right, so what. To do something just because you can do it is not a reason.
Who’s right is right is as relevant as your acknowledgment of one man’s freedom fighter is another man’s terrorist. There is no prejudgement just a desire to understand why when so much appears to be with the no vote. An increasing population with a lower socio economic background in an overpopulated urban area statistically shows a higher crime rate (or so I have read). If you are armed you are more likely to a) turn away an attempted mugging/robbery/assault b) defend yourself and others from a shooting. Acknowledged but one of the many questions would be if there were far harsher penalties would this reduce the crime rate and thereby negate the need to arm oneself. But I guess if that is only a minor reason to carry a gun and it is more relevant to do so because of the fear of tryanny, well I'm really doubtfull.