Defend your right to own a car.

[Sinfix_15]

Sorry, I can't agree with your premise that a large part of the country you call "the left" is out to take away all guns. I agree even less that they wouldn't care if crime shot up 200%. Forget the philosophy for a moment and accept that in reality, your rights in this country come from the constitution and they can always be changed through the amendment process. You mention slavery but black's God given right to life and liberty didn't provide a lot of solace to them before the 13th amendment was passed.

The constitution acknowledges and protects the rights that i have. It did not and does not give me rights. The government is a representation of a free civilization. They are essentially an employee. Black people were always free.... the american government didnt give black people their freedom, they just acknowledged the freedom they already had a lot slower than they should have. Something that might have been expedited if every black person was armed and capable of defending themselves.

Slavery is a good example of what a government is capable of when they have too much power and no threat of resistance from it's people.

So you don't believe we should be prepared to fight on our own soil? It is conceivable to you that we will have a government vs citizen civil war but not that we have to fight foreign enemies on our soil?

What part of disarming citizens gives a strategical advantage over foreign invasion?

[bu villain]

The constitution acknowledges and protects the rights that i have. It did not and does not give me rights. The government is a representation of a free civilization. They are essentially an employee. Black people were always free.... the american government didnt give black people their freedom, they just acknowledged the freedom they already had a lot slower than they should have. Something that might have been expedited if every black person was armed and capable of defending themselves.

You're playing word games now. Having "a right to be free" didn't stop them from being enslaved. Having a "right" is meaningless unless it's enforced in reality. If you don't think our constitution is important for enforcing your rights, then who cares what is in it at all?

Slavery is a good example of what a government is capable of when they have too much power and no threat of resistance from it's people.

The government didn't create slavery and it only ended it with the support of the people.

What part of disarming citizens gives a strategical advantage over foreign invasion?

I never said anything about disarming citizens having anything to do with foreign invasion. We don't rely on our average citizens to fight foreign invaders. That's what the standing army is for. You are taking two separate issues (disarmament and soldier training programs) and making them one issue now. I still don't see what one has to do with the other.

[Sinfix_15]

You're playing word games now. Having "a right to be free" didn't stop them from being enslaved. Having a "right" is meaningless unless it's enforced in reality. If you don't think our constitution is important for enforcing your rights, then who cares what is in it at all?

By what means is the constitution enforced? literally.... what do we use to enforce any law, any where?

I never said anything about disarming citizens having anything to do with foreign invasion. We don't rely on our average citizens to fight foreign invaders. That's what the standing army is for. You are taking two separate issues (disarmament and soldier training programs) and making them one issue now. I still don't see what one has to do with the other.

I made a link between their actions. That link was that theyre all "strategical advantages" in a theoretical "military vs civilian" conflict. It wasnt a part of my core argument, it was simply a "this looks fishy" comment.