your biased is showing again and I highly question your sources ( if you have any) on Obama's gun stances, your constant attempted insults of people who hold a different opinion then you is disgusting, the "liberal media" and "left people" do not hate gun owners, in fact many of them are owners of guns, what they want is common sense regulations, like the whole private sale/gunshow loopholes
I'm still fascinated that people think any amount of firearms would protect you from a tyrannical US government backed by the military.
Its like that scene in Arrested Development where Tobias explains the idea of a mind rejecting unpleasant information to Lucile. Then she calls him a ton of mean things and he blinks and says "well if you're just not going to say anything I can't help you".
Except thats you with facts that run counter to your own claims. From your own links.
The most successful tyranny is not the one that uses force to assure uniformity but the one that removes the awareness of other possibilities.
The distinction can be hard for even me to find. Usually on here I just act out a more radicalized version of myself. For example, in reality I fancy the idea of dueling, but am not actively supporting it's return. On here, however, my stance is more "YES, WE NEED THIS RIGHT NOW!"
Same with gun control. I'll argue in favor of unrestricted firearms for everyone until dawn on here, but really I'll be happy if I can just keep what I have now. And I don't want to ever have to use my guns on another person. I just don't want want to have my rifle taken away because it was a gift from my dad. And I don't want certain parts of it outlawed either, because it's an absolutely beautiful weapon and defacing it would be a crime in itself.
Yes on both accounts. Though I suspect most people wouldn't be able to afford nuclear weapons anyway. The kind of people who would be able to afford nuclear weapons likely wouldn't buy them anyway, and if they did buy them, they wouldn't go around killing people with them.