LogFAQs > #887738700

SushiSquid posted...

This was put into the Constitution so that we could violently overthrow our government. But by that rule, we should be allowed tanks, armed drones, armed fighter jets, bombs, missile launchers, etc. Clearly we cannot as citizens overthrow the government by force using what is legal still, so that argument has no merit. You're either for the original intent (and thus I am allowed to own nukes), or you understand that technology has changed too much for that to be valid still.

Given America's difficulties in Vietnam and other places, I'd say that guns might be enough to resist an occupying force. More importantly, guns weren't the strongest armaments at the time anyway so your argument is facetious.

SushiSquid posted...

No it is not. The rate at which good guys with guns make the situation better is almost nothing. Law enforcement and first responders have a harder job because of the idiot thinking he's a hero. You're also far more likely to hurt an innocent than to actually do any real good. It's not insurance, it's gambling.

All insurance is gambling. You're hedging on needing it, just as with guns. As for law enforcement, relying on them is a very quick way to die in many parts of the country.
---

(\/)(\/)|-|
In Zeus We Trust: All Others Pay Cash