Quote:
Originally Posted by Botnst
I'm not the advocate of arming the citizens equal to the army, though I understand it and believe it is a valid point even it doesn't carry the argument. I agree with MTI's contention that no rights are absolute. Only an absolutist thinks in those terms and I have no special use for absolutists of any sort. They too easily make useful idiots for cynical leaders.
It isn't necessary to outgun the government. I doubt that any revolution was begun by people who outgunned the government they sought to overthrow, though I could be wrong.
What's necessary is that good men do something. There's no a guarantee of success. Most revolutions fail. At least the first time.
We know the results if good men do nothing.
B
|
So, the question that begs an answer is where do you draw the line? If it's not necessary to outgun the government, and in consideration of the current "civilized" society, what weapons are permissible and what are not permissible?
My personal opinion is that weapons needed for self-defense or for sport should be permissible.......weapons utilized for outgunning a typical police force are not.