[15155]

And now you have no ability to take those "rights" back using violence if you needed to.

You do not have the right to own a firearm in Australia regardless of whatever mental gymnastics you want to perform.

- The fact that a forcible confiscation (governments cannot "buy back" something they never owned) campaign could happen at all means you do not have this right. "Give us these items or go to prison or die when we come to take them" - some right you have there!

- If you cannot own remotely the same articles that your police do, you do not have a right to bear arms. You have a privilege to own a limited set of items under a limited set of circumstances - all of which would be useless for mounting violent resistance.

[dkjaudyeqooe]

> And now you have no ability to take those "rights" back using violence if you needed to.

This is repeated a lot and shows that at bottom, gun ownership ideologues are violent thugs, they all promote using violence to impose their political views dressed up as a fight for "rights".

Ultimately it proves that restrictive gun laws are absolutely correct.

[15155]

Mental gymnastics on point once again.

The entire purpose of the Second Amendment - at least in the United States - is to enable violent resistance against tyranny. Not hunting, not culling predators, not sport, not home defense.

> Ultimately it proves that restrictive gun laws are absolutely correct.

"We need to restrict something that prevents further restriction."

You need violence, firearms, and "violent thugs" to go around disarm people who possess them - this in Australia is the threat of prison time.

Pot, meet kettle?

[dkjaudyeqooe]

> The entire purpose of the Second Amendment

This is plain bullshit, the historical context doesn't support your wishful thinking.

You can justify violence any way you like, but at the end of the day you're promoting violence and killing people based solely on your political views.

You're repugnant.

[15155]

> the historical context doesn't support your wishful thinking.

The most left-leaning members of the United States Supreme Court disagree with you legally on this point, just as much they would agree with you in principle.

> You can justify violence any way you like, but at the end of the day you're promoting violence and killing people based solely on your political views.

Where did I "justify violence?" The Second Amendment is quite clear and contains its own justification.

Again, you need violence to disarm people - so you're really not "against violence" - you're just against those using it that you don't agree with.

> You're repugnant.

Come and take them.

[dkjaudyeqooe]

> Come and take them.

That doesn't make the least bit of sense, but I can see you were desperate to say that, ie "I'm armed, there's nothing you can do!"

But the idiocy of the armed is the delusion that they are safe. A person can kill another person at a safe distance, at their convenience. Having a gun doesn't help you at all.

Maybe one day you'll start thinking for yourself and come to your senses.

But I doubt it.