It's that very ignorance and arrogance that makes you think you can do it, untill you fuck up and shoot the wrong/innocent person. There are too many cases like this, from not only civilians but by police officers.
So because it's within the realm of possibility that people get accidently shot that necessitates unilateral disarmament? Does that same prinicple apply to cars -- machines that statistically are infinitely more dangerous than guns?
There simply is no need for an armed civilian population.
Well said, Hitler. Forgive me for the blatant infraction of Godwin's Law, but I'm sure some government official told that to Germany and her citizens right before Nazi stormtroopers were hauling undesireables away.
As long as force and coercion exists, there is always a need for an armed civilian population.
And really, at the end of the day, America will never be disarmed willingly. It just won't ever be disarmed or occupied by anyone because there are too many people who value it and know it is a right afforded to them. Hell, the Framers were very clear that if anyone tries to take that right from them that the People rise up in insurrection.
So it's a moot point to even talk about. It won't happen without massive bloodshed. And should that bloodshed occur, it will be entirely the fault of the individuals or groups who waged that war against the People.
"Reason obeys itself; and ignorance submits to whatever is dictated to it" -- Thomas Paine
™ Version 4.2
(1)
