Quote:
Originally Posted by tschock
One could, but it would be a silly argument. Equating what "could" happen with what "should" or "should not" happen.
Are you talking pro-gun or anti-gun here? Seems "fear, fear, and more fear" are being preached by the gun regulators.
Emotional rhetoric much? So let me try. 'It's propaganda and there's many people with this country who would trade their freedom for security within a nanny state.'
Exactly. But those First Amendment limits are on the ACTION, aren't they? So shouldn't the same limits apply to the Second Amendment?
|
From what I see, there's more fear from the pro gun crowd than than the anti-gun crowd.
People talk about government tyranny. Well...
John Adams: Alien and Sedition Act
Abraham Lincoln: Suspension of Habeas Corpus
Woodrow Wilson: Sedition Act of 1918
FDR: Can be considered a tyrant if you look at the Japanese internments.
George W. Bush: The left considered him a tyrant
Barack Obama: The right considers him a tyrant
Plus there's the espousing of the term judicial tyranny ever since the Obergefell/Hodges decision. Don't forget about the wiretapping and NSA spying.
There's talk of government tyranny as the reason for assault weapons. Yet there's been a lot of tyrannical behavior from our country's leaders the past 240 years. How many overthrows or uprisings were there?
You can hate me, you can call me despicable names and you can wish awful things on me, but I am anti-gun and that's not a stance I plan on changing.