Ani

redraider11 said:

Ani said:

First of all, I condemn shooting and killing police officers. Chances are high it will be the "wrong" officers anyway.

But as someone not living in the US, in a country with strict gun controls and a tiny portion of US gun deaths, I really wonder:

Gun proponents often quote the Second Amendment and somehow it always ends with the right to defend against an evil government, hence the need for assault rifles and other military grade weapons.

Obviously, this is not about guns for rabbit hunts (neither was it about killing children and random innocent citizens though). It seems that someone (or multiple persons) are taking the Second Amendment into real actions, not just a theoretical right.

I'm interested to learn how the NRA and their puppets are going to spin-doctor this.

Not exactly sure what you're talking about. This was an act of terror, not someone defending themselves from a tyrannical government. You are really no better than the shooter in that you're condemning a whole group of people based on the action of a few, just like the shooter condemned the whole of police based on the actions of a few. 

In my opinion it was an act of terror and I condemned the shooting. Not sure why you put me into the same basket as the shooters.

I just picked up a popular pro-gun argument derived from the Second Amendment and expressed my confusion about where people do draw the line. Isn't shooting police officers of a tyrannic government also an act of terror? And who decides whether the government is tyrannic? If law enforcement is killing people daily, often enough innocent citizens mind you, when is it acceptable that people make use of their right to bear arms and to fight the government?

As far as I understand, it is almost impossible to make such decisions with-out also committing an act of terror. The Second Amendment is a totally theoretical concept and I don't see how it can be applicable in a modern democratic country.

30,000 gun-related deaths each year. Including kids. No other civilised country on this planet is even close to these numbers. No other democracy on this planet would be able to defend such a death toll with some theoretical right that can't be executed with-out being an act of terror at the same time.

First of all, I condemn shooting and killing police officers. Chances are high it will be the "wrong" officers anyway.

But as someone not living in the US, in a country with strict gun controls and a tiny portion of US gun deaths, I really wonder:

Gun proponents often quote the Second Amendment and somehow it always ends with the right to defend against an evil government, hence the need for assault rifles and other military grade weapons.

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

Obviously, this is not about guns for rabbit hunts (neither was it about killing children and random innocent citizens though). It seems that someone (or multiple persons) are taking the Second Amendment into real actions, not just a theoretical right.

I'm interested to learn how the NRA and their puppets are going to spin-doctor this.