General Chat (Non-Music-Related)

SOURCE: http://thefederalist.com/2015/06/25/the ... l-fallacy/

Many on the Left—and for this they are to be commended—have voiced their opposition to the increasing militarization of America’s police. Yet only a militarized police could enforce an Australian gun-control scheme in the United States. To take arms from men requires men with arms. There’s no other way to do it.

Yet because of the numbers of guns and men with guns in this country, any policy to remove those guns will inevitably depend on some measure of coercion, quite possibly a heavy measure. Does anyone honestly believe this country has the will or resources to seize 60 to 105 million firearms from 105 to 160 million Americans? “Progressives believe it,” I hear you answer. Yes, but the ones who do, believe this dishonestly.

I was trying to point out the differences between the Americans and Australians in their efforts at gun control.. as noted, it was an article at a bog site, and I revealed the Source of the article, but the differences in how the Australians confiscated guns through the use of gun buybacks, and the American style of legislating gun control are on course to collide at some time in the near future IN MY OPINION, the Australian people simply had no BILL OF RIGHTS to protect their gun ownereship and American s do have .. also, the high urbanization rate of Australia had made it easier to seize control of the people's guns.. I guess New York had some sort of gun control law enacted and the residents simply would not adhere to the law, force on force with bloodshed looks to be the only way people in The U.S. would follow the law if it ever occurs nationally and not state by state

The question broached goes far beyond guns.
If all men are created equal, and should be treated as equal... By what right does any man have to destroy another man?
By what thinking says a man has no right to protect themselves in this life?
Very brutal if you put this in perspective of mankind's history.