But we do not live in this idealized world you envisage. As much as we would all love to live in a world of perfect harmony, this world is far from perfect, and until the Second Coming it will always be flawed :) Just look at all of the dictators and miltary juntas in power across the globe to see that the best approximation of democracy we have (America) is well worth the inevitable struggle against human nature.
No, we donít live in an ideal world. But we should try our best to get as close as possible. Could you explain me how you combine Christianity with owning weapons? One of the reasons Jesus was crucified was that the Jews expected the messiah to leading them in the fight against the Romans. Jesus refused to become the king of the Jews and rejected any use of violence. I donít have a Bible in my office, but the first thing that comes into my mind is the arrest of Jesus. One of his apostles wantís to defend him and attacks a soldier with a sword badly injuring the soldierís ear. Jesus heals the ears and tells his apostles not to use any force. Afterwards he puts himself into the hands of soldiers knowing that he will be sentenced to dead.
The government can never stand up against the will of the people if those people are untied in common cause against a tyrannical oppressor. Sure, no small group is ever going to overthrow the government, but that wasn't the point of the Second Amendment - it was to ensure that as a whole, the people are empowered to do something to protect their freedoms.
So say it: The government can never stand up against the will of the people. The important thing is that people are willing to fight for there rights. But my point is that guns are quite useless to do that.
Bask? Basque? Anyway, again you misunderstand the principles. As long as the populace is armed, the will of the people is the point, not an individual group acting of their own volition.
Sorry, but the IRA and the ETA (the Basque National Movement) are examples how an armed movement does screw up thing completely. You are right these are small groups, but how should this work with a whole society when even within a small group people start to kill each other.
This is a strawman argument - we founded this country on peaceful principles which were backed up with force when needed. Isn't this exactly what the Second Amendment allows us to do in everyday life? We don't go around shooting people we don't like, but we can use force to protect our freedoms when it becomes necessary. You've pretty much proved my point.
And where is your need to use force? What threatening enemy to you want to defeat with your gun? The US army is the strongest in the world and the US can blow up everything they want every time every where. If your police isnít able to protect you against burglars than help to fix that.
But their government was already crippled and ready to be removed. If the government had been in a better state then it would have been different. Just look at the French Revolution for a more pertinent model.
Of course they where crippled. Thatís Nr. 1 in overthrowing your government: Cripple it and defeat it where you can and then bust it out. Take a second look at the French Revolution. Most of the persons who started it ended under the guillotine, Napoleon became a new brutal dictator and started to occupy most of Europe. After Napoleons defeat all the kings meet in my home town Vienna to negotiate who is becoming which part of Europe.
[ Parent ]