- This topic has 8 voices and 34 replies.
-
Posts
-
I also dont see the problem with law-abiding citizens owning whatever they want. The key concept in that is law-abiding.
What if the law is corrupt and/or unconstitutional? If an armed civilian is a threat to a corrupted government, then laws can be corrupted to take the rights of the citizen. The right to bear arms should be limited to the unquestionably insane.
If a law is corrupt or unconstitutional it should be thrown out. If the government does not do it then our constitutionally held arms are our last defense against tyranny and oppression are they not?
If a law is corrupt or unconstitutional it should be thrown out. If the government does not do it then our constitutionally held arms are our last defense against tyranny and oppression are they not?
Quoted for emphasis
If a law is corrupt or unconstitutional it should be thrown out. If the government does not do it then our constitutionally held arms are our last defense against tyranny and oppression are they not?
That line of thought puts people on a very slippery slope. It's the sort of reasoning Timothy McVeigh, and others of his ilk, use to justify their unconscionable acts.
If a law is corrupt or unconstitutional it should be thrown out. If the government does not do it then our constitutionally held arms are our last defense against tyranny and oppression are they not?
That line of thought puts people on a very slippery slope. It's the sort of reasoning Timothy McVeigh, and others of his ilk, use to justify their unconscionable acts.
Then what is the answer; devotion to the status quo? If the Founders had followed that logic we would all still be British Subjects and our history would probably look more like that of Canada or Australia.
