mattx109
Member
Consider a hypothetical situation:
In five years, or a decade, or a quarter century, the States have adopted Australian-style gun control laws. First registration, then banning, then confiscation and destruction. You can come up with your own scenario as to how this might happen (eight years of Kerry to start, anyone?).
A few months after the confiscations begin, you flip on the news and see that a couple of federal agents/police officers/troopers were shot and killed while attempting to confiscate a "cache of illegal weapons" from a home in Anytown. The man who shot them fled with his weapons and has yet to be apprehended.
What would you think of such an event? Was it a terrible crime, or an appropriate use of the RKBA to fight back against a tyrannical government? Where is the line draw between the two (a subjective question, I suppose)?
In five years, or a decade, or a quarter century, the States have adopted Australian-style gun control laws. First registration, then banning, then confiscation and destruction. You can come up with your own scenario as to how this might happen (eight years of Kerry to start, anyone?).
A few months after the confiscations begin, you flip on the news and see that a couple of federal agents/police officers/troopers were shot and killed while attempting to confiscate a "cache of illegal weapons" from a home in Anytown. The man who shot them fled with his weapons and has yet to be apprehended.
What would you think of such an event? Was it a terrible crime, or an appropriate use of the RKBA to fight back against a tyrannical government? Where is the line draw between the two (a subjective question, I suppose)?