“A hunter and former Marine reconsiders his Second Amendment stance after Sandy Hook and realizes that an armed populace is no match for a modern military.
Personally, the problem I’ve always had with the “Second Amendment is a defense against tyranny” argument is, who gets to define “tyranny”? The Tea Party crowd says Obamacare is tyrannical, even though it was adopted by a duly elected Congress, approved by a duly elected president and upheld by the Supreme Court. The same goes for income taxes, environmental regulations and speed limits. There are some people who think any state short of anarchy constitutes “tyranny.” The federal executive power is subject to legislative and judicial checks, however imperfect, and is ultimately answerable to the electorate. One group of self-styled “patriots” with guns is answerable only to another group with more guns, or bigger guns. — DH Stone”
The other thing I’ve never quite understood:
if you’re actually planning on overthrowing the U.S. government by force, then you are, by definition, a “rebel” not a “patriot. You are a “traitor.” You are guilty of “treason.” Why, at this point, would laws matter? — gun control laws or any other? It’s sort of absurd if you think about it. And as the gun lovers like to say, “Criminals will ALWAYS get guns” — well, guess what, Mister Ex-Patriot Patrick Henry Wanna-Be Guy: YOU’RE the criminal now. So don’t worry about it. : )