US Congress To Move Against Guns: “It Will Ban the Sale, the Transfer and the Possession”

Jim, your use of inverted commas around the term assault weapons was misused in that they are most certainly just that.

Should American citizens (and foreign residents) be able to call in air strikes just as common soldiers can? Common soldiers also are the ones wielding heavy artillery. A bit much perhaps? Then how about land mines or grenades?

Your reasoning as to why citizens ought to be able to possess the tools of war is more than just a bit fuzzy. In one breath you claim that said ownership would counter possible dictatorship or infringement of individual rights and with the next breath you state that having those weapons would prove futile against a tyrannical government. What you are in effect claiming is that the senseless slaughter of innocents is the price that must be paid in order to stage a futile rebellion against a tyrannical government. Have you forgotten that in America, even with its flawed voting system, the ability to peacefully depose a tyrannical government already exists?

And now for a bit of a history lesson. The inhabitants of the Warsaw ghetto faced not a government that sought to take away some of their individual liberties as is the case in America, but a government intent on their extermination. In that case it was kill or be killed. The Jews could not vote the Nazis out of power. There are many other examples from history that you chose to ignore, most of which are far more pertinent to the issue at hand. Non-violent movements have been successful in toppling corrupt regimes as happened recently in Egypt and Tunisia and bit further back in South Africa.

The real question then for you regarding America is whether you view the government as being more like the Nazis or more like the racist South Africans? If it is the former, then arm yourself to the teeth and prepare to die. If it is the latter, then you do not need assault rifles. What you would then require is the ability to organise enough like-minded people to go out and make your dissatisfaction known peacefully. i should think that in America, that would suffice.

Furthermore, in terms of tactics, i have got to believe that in America, the non-violent approach would have a far greater chance of being successful than would an armed insurrection. If you protest peacefully, you will not be up against the military. (But even if you were, do you really suppose that American soldiers would happily turn their guns on peaceful protesters?) No, you would face the police armed with pepper spray and water cannons. But if you go after the man with your assault weapons, a good part of the public will understand why the government sends in the Green Berets to wipe you out.

Just to clarify another matter for you: not everyone who voted for Obama recieves a government cheque of one type or another just as not everyone who voted for Romney does not recieve a cheque in the mail and the issue of gun control is one which will see many who voted for Obama against any new regulation and many who voted for the charlatan who never saw two sides of an issue that he would not espouse (depending only upon his audience) will favor some new form of gun control. This is an issue which blurs party lines.

As for the Supreme Court and its role in this; it will not have a role to play. Under Clinton there was a ban on assault rifles that could not be successfully challenged through the courts and so should Congress go that route again, there would not seem to be any new ground for a challenge.