Side story on the recent gun spree

[carl]

This particular 'importance' is none. I'm not a particularly fearful guy, and I feel safe without a gun.
Besides, I CAN fight without a weapon. Not having a weapon and still being ready to fight means to have the advantage of surprise.

You miss the point about individuals having the recourse to arms, two points actually.

The first is a member of society in which the individual has recourse to arms, is a member of a society that recognizes the intrinsic rights of individuals. That is a society worthy.

The second is a person who has recourse to arms is a person who can effectively defend themselves. They are not a victim in waiting. That is hugely critical to individual morale.

Thirdly is, you, Fuchs, may be an entirely fearsome fellow able to take on all comers. But it isn't just about you. It is also about the petite 55 year old woman with a bad knee that I mentioned before. If you deny her recourse to arms, you deny her the right to self defense. You can't do that.

That was three points.

You didn't get what 'decisive' means.
Enough popular support for rebels = government is doomed, the means to complete its demise will be found.
Not enough popular support for insurgents = government will massacre the rebels, doesn't matter how well they're armed.
The armament of rebels is a superficiality.

I know perfectly well what decisive means. If you have arms, you can fight. If you don't, you can't. That is pretty decisive.

A sample without the agent cannot disprove the agent's effectiveness.
What you meant to say was that a police state does not needs high tech. Well, I agree, but what I really said was that a police state needs less support (by people) with labour-saving surveillance high tech.

You know there is a contradiction in what you say when you comment about police states and popular support. Police states exist because popular support isn't great enough to ensure their survival without police state measures.

Not "most", but too many, and they are loud. I barely hear the sensible majority across the pond any more.

See Steve Blair's comment. Listening to the BBC, watching CNN and reading the New York Times doesn't get you very close to understanding the US.

An optic for home defence? Tacticool has taken over.
Seriously, your reply was to a quote which spoke against weapons as insurance against evil government (context!). That is ridiculous.

Hardly. An optic greatly increase your ability to make hits in low light, when adopting awkward positions and it will allow you to make hits much faster. Most people who have used one will attest to that. Very handy for defending oneself and one's family.

That is the beauty of an AR-15 as I described, it is dual purpose. Good for tyrants and hoods.