More Arizona politics hooray guns!

[VictorCharlie]

Nameless,

The average guy would probably tell you the most important reason for the 2nd is personal protection of life and property. I see it as much bigger than that. The founders knew that the ultimate guard against tyranny was an armed populace. Not an armed populace that was inferior to a tyrannical government's military but an armed populace that could match it. Obviously with the technological advances since the flint lock rifle some line has to be drawn. So while I'd agree that a law abiding citizen should not be able to own a fully automatic .50 Caliber machinegun or a rocket launcher I would say that the average law abiding citizen should be able to own a comparabl battle rifle to what the U.S. military uses. Some might think my stance on the 2nd as a defense against tyranny as grandiose but as I watch my federal government grow ever larger and ever more pervasive I am thankful I live in a nation that states I have the right to own firearms.

[armin]

Nameless,

The average guy would probably tell you the most important reason for the 2nd is personal protection of life and property. I see it as much bigger than that. The founders knew that the ultimate guard against tyranny was an armed populace. Not an armed populace that was inferior to a tyrannical government's military but an armed populace that could match it. Obviously with the technological advances since the flint lock rifle some line has to be drawn. So while I'd agree that a law abiding citizen should not be able to own a fully automatic .50 Caliber machinegun or a rocket launcher I would say that the average law abiding citizen should be able to own a comparabl battle rifle to what the U.S. military uses. Some might think my stance on the 2nd as a defense against tyranny as grandiose but as I watch my federal government grow ever larger and ever more pervasive I am thankful I live in a nation that states I have the right to own firearms.

I'm not sure that most americans even would care anymore if the goverment became tyranical. I think most of them would be apathetic and just go along with it or something...you look at greece and they're out rioting cause the gov wants to raise the retirement from 53 to 55 hahaha, somehow I think we've gotten used to just bending over, just give us our dose of american idol and desperate housewives and well just go along with all the shit.

[Nameless]

Nameless,

The average guy would probably tell you the most important reason for the 2nd is personal protection of life and property. I see it as much bigger than that. The founders knew that the ultimate guard against tyranny was an armed populace. Not an armed populace that was inferior to a tyrannical government's military but an armed populace that could match it. Obviously with the technological advances since the flint lock rifle some line has to be drawn. So while I'd agree that a law abiding citizen should not be able to own a fully automatic .50 Caliber machinegun or a rocket launcher I would say that the average law abiding citizen should be able to own a comparabl battle rifle to what the U.S. military uses. Some might think my stance on the 2nd as a defense against tyranny as grandiose but as I watch my federal government grow ever larger and ever more pervasive I am thankful I live in a nation that states I have the right to own firearms.

I will give you that VC: Your stand on fireweapon is quite different than most "pro second" I had the chance to talk with and has a few more arguments attached to it. I understand your point of view but as Armin said, I think that people would simply go apathic and go with the flow if the government would go too intrusive, especially because the government would probably repeat "for your security, for your security" like it already did a couple of time and people (most of them) would simply eat it and go forward. In my opinion, they already did when the Gov authorized "torture" or passed the patriot act and even then, most of the citizens have been quite apathic about it.
I also think that any "despotic" that would try to settle in the US knows the line too and would make sure to go progressively and to avoid the red zone that could cause a major uprising.
In that resepect, I wonder if all the drawbacks aren't overcoming the advantages in the US in the long run, especially if we consider that for a country which is at peace nationally (so which excludes places like Columbia or Mexico) has the highest rate of murder via firearms anually. IF people were all responsible like you, I sure wouldn't have any problems with it but it quite tickles me to know that such weapons are accessible to more or less anybody... and that it takes 16-18 to own a weapon but 21 to buy alcohol legally