“The bills rights was primarily adopted to prevent tyranny of government. The colonists had just fought a revolution war against perceived acts of tyranny (I.e. taxes without representation). Almost everything in the bill of rights is a check and balance against acts of tyranny by the government. Free speech, rights to bear arms, protection against unwarranted search and seizure, etc. Obviously we’ve been pretty far removed from a tyrannical government but should we really give up those checks and balances because of a small percentage of criminals.
Honestly what’s the first thing you would do if you were a dictator that wanted to push the US to a hard core socialist/communist government? Remove the guns so the producers couldn’t realistically fight back. Then you start removing protections of search and seizure and free speech. Basically everything in the bill of rights would be quickly removed because those are the primary checks and balances to oppose your takeover.”
Gun bans work well for tyrants. They worked well for Hitler, Stalin and Chairman Mao, to name just three.
Gun haters and gun control advocates need to give SERIOUS consideration to these “proposals” they put forth. The unintended consequences have a high potential to come back around and bite them just as badly (if not worse) as the gun owners.
In a serious calamity (martial law, gov’t tyrannical takeover, etc.) a gun owner most likely will not have any interest in protecting a non-gun owner as they probably will not trust them to not “squeal” to the authorities. This in hand may lead to the non-gun owners being lead to slaughter, as they have no means of defending themselves, and nobody to defend them…
If you want to stop/severely hinder gun violence, wake-up! Get rid of the banksters, their puppet-politicians and all gun-grabbers; allow CCW (concealed carry) arm teachers and ban gun-free zones.
