World-wide, Gun Bans Breed Defiance

[Tom Servo]

I have nothing to argue from or with, but I just don't see it ending "peacefully"

You might see small-scale flareups, but anything approaching organized resistance is unlikely.

Jeff Knox observed that around 6% of gun owners participate in even the most rudimentary political activism. We can't even agree on a political candidate. Why should we expect a large group to unite under a single banner?

More daunting to this ragtag group would be the fact that they would be branded as terrorists. They'd lose touch with their families, their homes, their possessions, and many would die. They wouldn't be remembered as heroes or martyrs. The media would paint them as unhinged lunatics, and the end result would be the implied justification for even more repressive laws.

If the average American can't even be troubled to vote, how can we expect them to take those kinds of risks?

We're far better off keeping such bans from happening in the first place.

 

[MLeake]

I agree.

Look how the Average American probably views the Branch Davidian or Ruby Ridge incidents. Most probably don't even remember them. Very few would think of them as unjustified violence by federal agents, but they were.

In both cases, arresting the primary targets when they were not surrounded by family and friends would have been feasible - in the case of Randy Weaver, he unknowingly had stopped to offer assistance to a couple feds whom he thought had suffered a vehicle breakdown.

Bad tactical decisions were made, unnecessary gunfights were initiated, and innocent parties (women and kids) were killed in both incidents.

And Joe Blow has no idea...