You're argument isn't logical.
If you want to argue my arguments are irrational you have to address my arguments, not just reiterate your own. What's irrational about wanting to reduce gun violence and murder by eliminating access to guns? Seems pretty straight forward and logical to me. It's hard to argue that it wouldn't work when every other developed nation has done so.
The 2A's purpose is to allow the people to hold gov't in check.
Did it not fail spectacularly at that purpose for over 150 years? Are chattel slavery, Jim Crow and segregation your idea of
keeping the government in check?
That capacity gives the right of the people to be armed. Just because some southern thugs used their firearms to enforce slavery doesn't mean you toss out the 2A.
It certainly questions your claimed utility. You just said the purpose was to keep the government in check. Did it do that?
Bath Water = Southern Slaver Thugs and Guns
Baby = 2A
You should get that embroidered on a throw pillow.
You could name a myriad of other things that are misused that have very good intentions. That doesn't mean you toss out the the good.
How about if they're just bad? I'm still waiting for you to describe the good. You have an
imagined good in the face of 150 years of oppression.
Our gun violence is due to criminals and inner city urban gang and thug related crime. The actual number of mass shootings and "Children' being killed is miniscule when you remove the black communities involvement.
As a parent the death of a child isn't at all miniscule.
Again, your argument carries no water. Your just a sounding board for anti-2a rhetoric.
If we can't guarantee that our gov't will NEVER go tyrannical, the people must be able to keep their gov't in check.
Except when it was they didn't.
And if you want to toss out the argument that citizens wouldn't be able to defend against our military, that argument carries a very large assumption that our military will blindly follow orders to attack its own citizens who are fighting against tyranny.
I'm not. I think if society has gotten to the point that we've broken out into civil war that laws become superfluous, order will break down, and most likely both sides will start seizing military stock piles. So what do you need to be armed now for?
If that were to happen, Washington knows it wouldn't bode well for them.
Now that you're just assuming. For me armed revolution is more like a fantasy and the sides are imaginary and made up because I'm not envisioning a real one. They might as well be elves verse orcs. You seem to have a real gripe that you want to settle. This why the rest of us should be weary not only of the argument that we need to arm citizens for this far off posibility where the government is tyrannical coupled with the imaginary assumption the people are decent and we can trust them with guns but also of the people typically making this argument. I don't trust you with a gun nor do I trust white people at large to use their guns in defense of my civil rights. That hasn't been the experience of black and brown people in this country. I suspect that they'll only use them to further their own interests like history has shown.
And in that same tone, in this thread we have people discussing Palestinian genocide, yet, the Biden has stated that citizens wouldn't have a chance as they don't have plans, tanks or even Nuclear arms (I'm paraphrasing as I don't remember the exact quote but I"m sure some ding dong would correct me on here).
Again, if no arms, how do we keep in check a tyrannical gov't?
The Palestinians aren't going to be able to enjoy freedom and liberty or their own nation without international support. An AR 15 just isn't going to cut it.
