Might get deleted so apologies in advance if this breaches any rules.
This isn't about the politics of that situation at all. Instead it's about how that situation demonstrates that anti-gun people really have no arguement.
Coupled with the real truth that most of us know, guns don't kill people,
the situation there demonstrates that even armed with military weaponary
a revolution is still isn't a surety.
Crime being symptomatic of so many issues the least which is firearms availibility. The real damage to any society is done according that old adage,
the pen is mightier than the sword.
All told the lasting argument it is that firearms and ownership comes down to two kinds of people. Legal and illegal. The number of the illegal kind
really cannot be stopped and it's a fallacy to think so. While at least in the legal sense, it encourages govenrment to actually govern in the best interests of the people to keep the crime rates down.
It just appears that the fighting in Libya indicates for all to see that the mere possesion of a firearm even on a large scale cannot be held accountable for any change in a society. Be it a simple neighborhood going downhill type example, or a nation in the grip of in fighting.
It's that level of dishonesty that the anti-gun supporters tend to enforce.
Don't want to turn this into a political discussion at all. The point is that the anti-gunners look more and more conclusively ridiculous (dishonest?) of late.
Your thoughts please?
This isn't about the politics of that situation at all. Instead it's about how that situation demonstrates that anti-gun people really have no arguement.
Coupled with the real truth that most of us know, guns don't kill people,
the situation there demonstrates that even armed with military weaponary
a revolution is still isn't a surety.
Crime being symptomatic of so many issues the least which is firearms availibility. The real damage to any society is done according that old adage,
the pen is mightier than the sword.
All told the lasting argument it is that firearms and ownership comes down to two kinds of people. Legal and illegal. The number of the illegal kind
really cannot be stopped and it's a fallacy to think so. While at least in the legal sense, it encourages govenrment to actually govern in the best interests of the people to keep the crime rates down.
It just appears that the fighting in Libya indicates for all to see that the mere possesion of a firearm even on a large scale cannot be held accountable for any change in a society. Be it a simple neighborhood going downhill type example, or a nation in the grip of in fighting.
It's that level of dishonesty that the anti-gun supporters tend to enforce.
Don't want to turn this into a political discussion at all. The point is that the anti-gunners look more and more conclusively ridiculous (dishonest?) of late.
Your thoughts please?
Last edited: