So. We are paranoid to worry about them confiscating our guns, are we?

[robkelk]

robkelk wrote:

khagler wrote:I'm not a big believer in euphemisms.

How about your opponents replace "victim disarmer" with "perpetrator armer"? That isn't a euphemism, either.

khagler wroteersonally, I find it rather insulting when someone advocates sending armed men to force me to live my life according to his whims, and murder me if I resist.

There's a simple solution to that: take the weapons away from the armed men.

Go ahead. The US legal system, back when it was founded as a justice system, was based on principles such as "innocent until proven guilty" and "it is better that ten guilty persons escape than that one innocent suffer."

Yet you claim "someone advocates sending armed men to force me to live my life according to his whims, and murder me if I resist" with no evidence that this is happening. If you can ignore "innocent until proven guilty" when it works against you, then it's worth nothing.

Personally, I'm all in favor of abolishing the standing army (as the founders of the US intended) and the police (which today act as a whole bunch of small standing armies). It'll never happen, though--pretty much everyone, especially those who want to disarm the general public, wants the government to have lots and lots of guns so they can impose their will on others.

Okay, I'm done. I can't debate with a paranoid.
--
Rob Kelk
"Governments have no right to question the loyalty of those who oppose
them. Adversaries remain citizens of the same state, common subjects of
the same sovereign, servants of the same law."

- Michael Ignatieff, addressing Stanford University in 2012