You can think it fantasy as it happens I guess.
No, it really is a fantasy to think that everyone with a gun would suddenly agree that the government was evil and needed to be taken down, and that they would actually succeed against all the other private citizens who also have guns and don't want you to take down the government. The only way such a thing might succeed is if everyone with a gun was of one mind about taking down the government. But if there was that much unanimity about it, then the government would long ago have fallen by the voters. As I said before, there are no guarantees in life - only chances. And the chances do not favor having lots of guns around, because whether they are needed for a revolution or not, they are guaranteed to provide lots of gun crime, as we have already seen. So it is a question of whether you go through life in an underground shelter to protect from nuclear fallout, or you take your chances outside and live your life to the fullest.
No doubt voting is the way to handle it, but that ignores what people are saying about the state of voting in this country.
People are saying all sorts of things about voting. They always have. Be more specific, and how trusting the voting process ignores what they are saying.
You brought up slavery and any cross examination should not be construed as supporting slavery. You blew it all off and shirked responsibility.
Where did I "blow off" cross examination? Let's review. In response to appeal to the wisdom of the founding fathers, I made the point that the founding fathers also codified slavery in the constitution. You then said: "
Like the Old Testament? What about the New where Jesus uses slaves as examples?" In an effort to figure out how this is any kind of response to me, I asked "
You are not seriously supporting institutional slavery, condoned by the US government, are you?" That is not "blowing off" your remark. It is asking for clarification on what you intended to prove by that remark. Was it to show that the founding fathers had wisdom in codifying slavery? Or was there some other point. Was it that Jesus was just as bad in his support of slavery. If you insist I will address that directly. Jesus mentioned slavery because it was a fact of life at that time. He in no way supported it or urged his followers to codify it into law. So, no. Jesus was not as bad as that. Even the Old Testament is focused most of all on leading the chosen peopled out of slavery. Nowhere in the Old or the New Testament is slavery every extolled as a good thing. It is more often described as an evil, as when describing the Jewish experience under Egypt. But that is quite a bit off topic, because today no decent person anywhere in Christendom supports codifying slavery into law and enforcing such laws. But the founding fathers did. So did a lot of other people at the time. The founding father were not terrible. They were just a product of their time. I don't blame them. But we are not limited like they were. We have come to realize that slavery is bad. And we will also come to realize that have a saturation level of guns is also bad. It may take some time, and I don't expect to see it in my lifetime, but I think it is inevitable.
Again you are opposed to a young female gun rights to protect herself from home invaders. That is all we need to know
If there were a way to give a gun only to a young female living by herself and being stalked by a former boyfriend or other such dangers, without allowing guns in the hands of people like the shooter who killed 5 and injured 12 in Colorado Springs on Nov 19th, or the one who killed 5 in La Plata, Maryland on Nov. 4th, or the one who killed 8 in Broken Arrow, Oklahoma on Oct. 27th, or the one who killed 5 and injured 3 in Raleigh, NC on Oct. 13th, or the one who killed 5 in Baytown, TX on Oct. 5th, or the one who killed 5 in McGregor, TX on Sep. 29th, then I would be all for it. Unfortunately we don't have the ability to set a policy that would produce this outcome. If you think you know a way of doing that, by all means share it.l