Think I’ve told this story before, but my mom and most of her friends lived through WWII in Europe. They were telling stories one day about how parents would dig holes in the forests and hide their kids in these holes overnight to protect them from the soldiers (from all sides, BTW) who would come through the towns, often drunk, and rape the women and children.
When, as a young and naive person, I asked why the people didn’t do anything to stop them, they laughed and said:
“With what? They took our guns away before these things happened, and we willingly gave them away, because they told us it was for our own protection. They said that guns were dangerous in criminals’ hands, so we turned them in.”
Never say, “it can’t happen here,” because that’s exactly what they thought, too.
I cannot imagine what those parents felt as they had to helplessly watch their children being raped and all of their possessions being stolen by soldiers from various armies. For that reason, I fully support the rights of citizens to own guns that, in sufficient number, can fight armies. This is why there is such powerful opposition to the banning of “semi-automatic” guns and gun registration (which was used in those days to locate the people who owned guns). These people are not “crackpots” in most cases. They just understand history and how it tends to repeat.[/quote]
So I got my answer on the “necessity” of assault weapons. It is so when true patriots need to rise up against the oppressive government, they have the ability to do so.
Given that same line of thought, it is then ok to have some innocent casaulties along the way to maintain that ability to launch armed resistance against future government encroachment real or imagined.
But why stop at semi-automatics, why not have the ability to keep a few tanks and maybe even go nuclear.
