I don't want to put words in your mouth, but it seems that you want to maintain the possibility of forcibly overthrowing the U.S. government using assault rifles, or whatever. Yes, the government is rapidly becoming a full blown Plutocracy. Are you seriously thinking in terms of a bloody revolution?.
You're not putting words in my mouth in this case, as that's exactly what I meant. Should we have told those Jewish patriots who hid in the mountains of eastern Europe attacking Nazi supply trains that they should accept their slavery and remain docile? Should we have told those citizens who revolted against Khadafi that they should have put aside violence in hopes their dictator would finally treat them fairly? Should we tell those Syrians now revolting against Assad that they should remain peaceful and just accept their enslavement to a despotic government? To say that revolution must never be an option relegates the world population to enslavement by dishonorable and despotic rulers. Jefferson understood that fact, and he stated exactly what I stated. As JFK once told an impressive audience of US VIP's at a White House banquet, "There hasn't been this much intelligence all together in one room since Thomas Jeferson dined alone!" (approximate quote) It's usually a good bet to go with Jefferson. Assuming that our government will never be run by despotic elements would be a dangerous assumption!
Sure. Do a study. It's no big thing with me, and I never said I was against it. You are putting your thoughts into my head and criticizing me for them. (Strawman argument).
It's true that you didn't say you were
against a study to prove
your premise or mine, but you did say that such a study would be absolutely necessary before you could accept
my premise. Are you then stating that a similar study as the one you mandated before accepting my premise be mandated before implimenting further gun control? If so, then we have no difference on this point.
Many on the left wish to require gun control, and I've not heard one say that an impartial, scientific study should be conducted to prove their premise before taking such action. What's good for the goose is good for the gander, so mine is not a strawman argument. I'm simply asking for the same kind of proof for your premise as you demanded of mine, and having the impartial results before imposing a solution.
I don't have any ideas how you could do a study with a group that is allowed assault rifles in a big city and a control group not allowed. A study about teaching responsibility is easier within the confines of a school, but not in the open streets of the 'hood.
If we're seeking a good example of a "strawman argument", you've provided one here. The justification for gun control is that the prevalence of guns causes violent behavior. If that premise is true, one should argue for restrictions on all gun ownership, not just assault weapons. The premise that would be studied is the one I offered, and assault weapons needn't be widely distributed to prove or disprove that premise. If my premise is true, it follows that the teaching and enforcement of "good character" and "responsibility" would result in reduced violence, regardless of what weapons are available to the citizenry.
Now don't get excited; I am exaggerating, but it seems that you are putting higher reverence in the Constitution than you are the Commandment, thou shalt not murder. I just don't understand how a Christian should be so up in arms about arms, so to speak. As I said before we are miles apart from understanding each other. I'm not a Christian, and I can't even kill a spider, let alone fire an assault rifle in a bloody revolution. I really am puzzled.
No excitement here, but this appears to be another strawman? As a Christian, I AM opposed to murder. As a citizen of the Republic based on the greatest Constitution ever written, I am also opposed to any governmental leadership that ignores that Constitution. If there is a religious argument here, it's my argument that it's the morality and character of individuals that causes violence, not the prevalence of firearms. It is also a
lack of morality and character that creates despots; another reason for us to concentrate on raising the level of individual character, not on outlawing a means by which those of non-violent character can defend against those individuals and governments with violent and despotic intentions.
