| TheRealMafoo said: it's funny how people look at the Constitution, and see different things. When I see it telling the american people that you have the right to weapons for the purpose of uprising against an unjust government, I assume they meant to allow me the tools needed to get the job done. I don't think they would want me to still have a musket. I think they would want me to have whatever is needed. I don't think nukes are needed, but missiles, tanks, automatic weapons... whatever we would need to replace the government. The entire point was for government to realize that if they start removing out liberties, there were real consequences. I think it's obvious that today there aren't any. |
I think there are consequences though. Every 2 years we the people have the ability to revolt non-violently. If the majority does not agree with the policies or the direction of the government, then we get to clear house. The real problem is the money involved in politics, not the ability to change our government on a regular basis.
I do agree however that we should have the right to bear arms that would be sufficient enough should the government say, suspend elections. However, the Constitution does mention regulation, so give qualified people arms, but that doesn't mean anyone can have any weapon. If you get training and licensed then you can get a wide array of weaponry as things stand. I believe that most firearm related crime is carried out by those that have obtained their weapons illegally. At one point I heard a stat in a documentary which I don't fully remember, but it was something like 3% of gun stores sell weapons illegally, accounting for over 70% of gun crime. If I can find a link I'll post back. But the point is the focus should be on illegal weapons first, then if there is still a major problem, look into tighter regulation, but focus on the main problem first.
