this is why I bring it up and this will be my last post on this matter regardless of what you write after it because I have other things to do than continue this conversation - even if Hitler were the President of the United States, you would have no legal right to shoot him. The world would be better off and morally you would be right, but you as an individual would have no legal right under the 2nd Amd or otherwise to shoot the President no matter who he is for tyranny reasons. Nor do you have a right to shoot drug lords who aren't threatening to kill you or your loved ones nor do you have a right to hunt down Muslim fanatics who aren't attacking you or your family, etc. Individuals cannot legally shoot others in this country for reasons other than self-defense and the 2nd Amd. does not give anyone the legal right to shoot people for reasons other than self-defense and therefore individuals don't need to legally own guns for reasons other than legally permitted hunting of animals or for self-defense. Any individual can join the military or the police or national guard, CIA, FBI, etc. and protect this country from domestic or foreign threats if that is what he wants to do and that is what they are all there for. The rest of the stuff you spout is just vigilante justice and illegal regardless of morality and gun control is about legality not morality. View Comment
so enlighten me then, with respect to protection from tyranny, at what point is it legal for a private American citizen to decide the US govt or any part of it is "tyranny" and to use its guns against it? View Comment
when the founding fathers wrote the constitution there were no machine guns or "assault weapons". there were muskets. different technology requires different laws.
as the world changes it is perfectly natural for our laws to change as they have over the last few hundred years. whether you like it or not as opposed to the 1700s, women can vote, slavery has been abolished, search warrant laws have changed, etc. and if you know your history, you will know that rights of speech, religion, freedom for warrant-less searches have all been affected by laws passed and by the courts in the past few hundred years - just as gun laws have changed - legally.
my comments about killing and coups come from the commenters in this article - such as : "It is about allowing the citizens of this once great country to protect themselves from tyrants and an out of control government, kind of like the ones that stand on a podium screaming and yelling that they want to ban guns....." and "The second amendment isn't there for hunting, Gov. It's there so citizens can protect themselves from tyranny-foreign or domestic." View Comment
if you think based on the 2nd Amd you have a legal right to kill the Governor or try a coup to take over his office because you don't like his politics, you are crazy. any plot to take over any govt office in this country by guns will find you dead or in jail. View Comment
wrong - it's for a "well regulated militia" not for individuals to decide they don't like their own govt. and then try to take it over by guns. the FBI and others will be thrilled to check you and all you others out there who think you have a right to arm yourself for these purposes. VOTING is how you legally change your govt. View Comment
do you seriously think it is legal in this country to threaten the governor of a state with guns? there is no legal right to try to topple this government with guns. you will find yourself locked up in jail WITHOUT ANY GUNS if you ever attempt it or even plan it. the 2nd amendment specifically states it is for a militia NOT for personal individuals to decide they don't like the govt and try to take it over. View Comment