[JediJones]

"Might as well" be banned means there's no difference whether they are banned or not under that hypothetical scenario.

Again, if you are going to hold presidential assassins out as examples of why the individual citizens' right to bear arms needs to be preserved, you're going to lose the argument all day long. It leads one to question whether the benefit of killing a hypothetical tyrant is greater than the cost of losing some of our democratically elected officials.

[kcar]

When you start doing a cost-benefit "analysis" of the limits of our RIGHTS, we effectively won't have any. The Constitution is a social contract to me. If the government goes too far in violating that, they need to be overthrown. Just this past preseidential election we watched as hundreds of attorneys were flown to Florida to throw out the military vote and to otherwise overturn the results of the election. Had that occurred rebellion would have very well been justified. It's always been either ballots or bullets, preferably the former, but citizens should not weaken the latter lever.

Maybe I'd "lose" those arguments all day long in your part of the country, but the left-right scale is a little offbase there.

[Atlas Sneezed]

Again, if you are going to hold presidential assassins out as examples of why the individual citizens' right to bear arms needs to be preserved, you're going to lose the argument all day long.

---

I think that we who fully support the 2nd amendment will do fine without taking strategic advice from those who do not.