An amendment of the 2nd would likely start some sort of civil conflict IMO.
Shoulda bought a Ranger or Skeeter...
Rather have a cigarette anyway...
For me it would depend on what places like Oklahoma and Texas did in response. If they said we don’t care what anyone says, guns are legal in our states, then I’d side with the state. If they caved to the Feds, I’d take a long vacation out of the country.
I think he left of a zero. 440 million guns for 327 million people.
I’m kind of ashamed that we as a society have failed to achieve a greater density than that for the preservation of life and liberty. Tsk tsk tsk...
The suggestion that rendering millions of citizens as ‘individuals’ defenseless in an attempt to attenuate the relatively low frequency of incidents in which small clusters of citizens have been killed or injured ‘collectively’ by firearms leaves the overwhelming majority of citizens with a profoundly greater risk of death or injury from a myriad of sources than the actual risk to which a relatively insignificant collective subgroup is exposed. Remember, there are around 350 million citizens, and God only knows how many illegal aliens, now residing in our country. The argument in question intentionally does not take into account of the enormous number of incidents where privately owned firearms are used to prevent citizen deaths or injuries often without ever being fired. The rationale behind this dangerous suggestion is based a on a fallacy appealing to the emotions of the audience (argumentum ad passiones) and it smells to me like another Marxist dialectic narrative. I call to mind that Hillary Clinton was a protégée of Saul Alinsky, Marxist author of ‘Rules for Radicals’; so, It’s not much of a reach to imagine from where this idea arises…..
Similar threads
