Man carries assault rifle to Obama protest -- and it's legal

[highwaystar101]

HappySqurriel said:

highwaystar101 said:

HappySqurriel said:

highwaystar101 said:
If you want to overthrow a government then logically the best method is to begin a grass roots political movement based on non-violence but democratic means. If people support you then you will eventually gain enough power to make a change.

To start a war with weapons against the government should be a last resort at best.

Of course this only works if you live in a democratic country where you maintain your rights to freedom of speech, freedom of assembly and what not ...

Well of course, and the US government supports these rights and freedoms and it is in the public interest to protect them if neccesary. The USA has nothing to fear but fear itself when it comes to government control.

If the USA was becoming a new North Korea then yes a violent uprising would be one of very few options where I would support the freedom of the public to possess weapons, and that is only if all non-violent democratic means have been supressed by the government (I'm talking to the extent of taking peoples right to vote or running a one party system by aboloshing opposition). But until the change occurs where a threat from the government looks likely I see no real justification for owning powerful guns such as assult rifles.

The question becomes at what point is violence the best course of action ...

Long before your country becomes as bad as North Korea, your rights can be taken away to the extent that any protest can be surpressed and any information that it existed can be hidden. At this point violence may be the only option to prevent your country from becomming North Korea.

It depends on which point the government itself becomes corrupt enough to supress peoples political powers. Once the political power of the people has become less of that than the government, stopping them from organising a democratic uprising in an unconstitional manner, then that would be the point to act violently. But that's not going to hapen in the near future imo.

When the right to protest is unconstitutionally supressed to the extent that no democratic uprising could occur would be one of the points I would see it justifiable to begin armouring the population just in case. By which point armouring the nation would be something that would occur whether guns are banned or not. It would likely be guerilla resistance and the chances are you produce guns unlawfully in illegal factories anyway.

But that event will not happen in the foreseeable future and armouring the nation at this point would only hinder the population through gun crime rather than empower it to any valuable extent.