Bob78164 wrote:But preserving the ability to implement armed resistance to government authority (which is unquestionably going on here) is precisely the rationale advanced by some (such as flock, and I think you at times) in support of "gun rights." I think this example of such armed resistance illustrates exactly what rights we're trying to preserve, and I hope gives pause to some opponents of regulation. And the price we're paying for such ready availability of firearms is awfully steep.
I'll ask again -- did these idiots acquire their weapons legally? --Bob
This type of resistance is precisely what the 2nd amendment is for, IMO. Should such a cause arise that a larger portion of the populace supports it, it is imperative that such resistance be feasible.
As long as there is little real support, there is little real danger. If there is great support, then perhaps it is a righteous resistance.
But the ability to execute such a resistance is needed to keep the government in check.
Why do you call them idiots? Because they don't buy into your idea that the government is always good and should provide for all? Because if they are called 'idiots' by enough people the real idiots will think of them as idiots?
I don't think they are idiots. I do think they are fighting the battle the wrong way for a cause that does not yet (and I mean yet) justify such armed resistance.
I'm sure they purchased their guns legally. And aside from their current actions, probably would be able to continue to purchase them legally.
..what country can preserve it’s liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance? let them take arms.
~~ Thomas Jefferson