> I believe it is for the government to be afraid of its people, not the other way around.
HA!
The government is not afraid of you. If you ever tried to actually use your weapon against them, you'd be branded a terrorist (justified or not), and hunted down and killed, or if you are lucky, detained indefinitely.
The logic behind the reasoning in the quote is the same that make people think they can end an oppressive regime (like Iraq or North Korea) by just walking in and killing the leader.
You feel powerful with a weapon in your hand, but the world is more complex than that.
A country where government is afraid of people because of guns is not a country where you want to live. Trust me. I'm fine with guns, but don't believe you're doing anything useful.
I really don't understand why people have such a hard time with this, when it has been gone over so much. Regulated from the latin origin regula or to supply. So well regulated is well supplied. So the founding father where saying that a well supplied militia is necessary to the security of a free state therefore arms are not to be infringed to guarantee a well supply. It has nothing to do with regulation, AKA a governed group of militia people, but people try to contort regulated with regulation all the time to make the second amendment fit their desires for it to read how they want it to.
So why aren't you using drugs? The government is pretty straightforward on those too. That's just a crappy excuse.
Apart from that, this post is an overall crap too and you just (unsuccessfully) try to justify owning a gun by saying 'just in case' and promoting fear of government, opressors, cops, neighbours, everyone.
I don't own a gun, probably never will, and I forbid my children to play with toy guns. There's plenty of other things that they can play with in order to make bonds with their peers, not get afraid of them.
Peace.
Yes, if you live in 1700. In 2012, not so much. And especially not at all in the US, which is HUGE, segregated into states, and the government has the biggest military power in history.
With a gun you're not even a match for the police, much less the government.
Actually, you only get to have weapons because the government allows you too.
If tomorrow the government decided to forbid private weapons, the writer would have returned his weapon pronto or face jail time or being shot by the police.
In that case (which is not very far-fetched) I don't see him fighting with his weapon for what he considers his right at all. Does anybody?
You're the BS result of an arcane societal obsession of one certain Western country based on an judicially blessed misrepresentation of what their "founding fathers" had in mind on the issue which even in it's original intent is obsolete anyway (e.g people being armed in militias to overthrow a possible repressive government -- a notion that made sense back in the day, but today's government has 1000 times the resources and most gun owners don't care about the government anyway).
So, let's not.
