Exactly the problem.
Originally Posted by Mr. Machette
Again, this claim is made by the heads of a number of states, not only the US.
Works for us, not the other way around.
Any member of the State is a member of his or her community. They are not manufactured in vats.
Who are residents of the comunities they police.
But not necessarily outgunned. Their arsenal is not limited to small arms.
Then they are guilty of treason and vastly outnumbered.
As it is here...with the proviso that they are theoretical and therefore subject to subversion. We are taught to be vigilant in respect to precisely this--by history as well as school.
Checks and balances. This is grade school civics over here BTW.
I am referring to practical real-life differences, not abstractions. Armed revolt will occur, given sufficient provocation, whether it is recognized in writing or not. That is our definition of a "natural right".
The intent of the right is unique AFAIK. There are no other contries to my knowledge that lists armed revolt as a natural right. (France? Maybe?) It is actually quite a dividing line between our society and most other developed nations.
The State arsenal is not, in modern countries, limited to small arms.
Not in the case of small arms.
We are also free to choose any caliber or projectile type available. This is not true for standing armies.
No. They were only preceded by the disarmament of those persons who opposed them. Those who agreed with them, one the other hand...
So, those abuses of power were invariably preceeded by disarmamnet of the population.
The fact that something is in writing does not prevent its subversion.
In fact, said corruption and abuse of power is specifically the "tyrany" described in the second amendment.
If that were true, you'd be doing like the Swiss and requiring households to be armed. Why, then, is this not done in the USA?
It's intent is to maintain a society at arms. Period.
You are afraid, aren't you?
With traitors in both houses of congress, a president who literally signed amendments four through nine out the effing window, a viirtual civil war spilling across our southern border and China vocally stating it's intent to militarilly expand across the globe sometime this century, it is as relvant now as it ever was.
I made little or no mention of "me countries values", other than simply stating that gun ownership is not a big deal over here. It's a tool. We use it. Hunting, recreation and so on.
You need to stop applying you countries values to the conversation.
Whatever arangement you have over there is your problem and completely irrelevant to U.S. law and regulations.
I had previously written that the American take on guns appeared to be something akin to religious sacrament, as opposed to merely considering guns to be tools. However, the horrible-nightmare-of-nightmares scenario you've described above, with congress, the prez, the Mexicans and the Chinese all out to get you, indicate a mindset primarily dominated by abject fear.
In fact, I would say you are wholey ignorant of the actual mindset of most American gun owners. Many of which are current or ex-military.
The world's as scary as that, is it?
Well, I'm happy with my 10-ga. and my three-ought.
Maybe I should be...scared?