[Osborn F Enready]

Winterwind said: I don't care. where in the constitution does it say that. Because I could just say in return, that they were thinking of spreading their freedoms around the world by force.

And you would be proven wrong by simply reading the WRITINGS OF THE FOREFATHERS who discussed at length the purposes and wording of the Constitution and later, the BOR.

You seem to think context has no bearing on the facts, and you couldn't be more wrong.

If you sincerely want the facts, LEARN by using your search engine or buying the books written by the forefathers, or books that were compiled on their personal writings of the times the texts were written, adopted and ratified.

Winterwind said: I don't really think that, but it could be true for all I know.

So change what you know, by learning the facts, reading about the surrounding context, and reading the debates and discussions that took place.

Winterwind said: I've asked you about this before. Which war powers and emergency act?

Sorry, I worded that incorrectly.

War and Emergency Powers Act:
Emergency Powers Statutes, Senate Report SR 93-549, November 19, 1973

War Powers Act - Congresspedia

Winterwind said: Why do you think the RPG should be legal?

Your talking in circles.

I have already stated for defense of the individuals and free-states should the nations government turn against its own people using force.

Militias have the right to own individual defense arms such as you speak of, as well as artillery batteries, etc.

You seem to think this is a "simple matter", when it clearly is not. All states have different gun laws to some extent, but almost all states have something similar to THIS wording in their constitution:

This is from my state of Ohio's Constitution:

ARTICLE I: BILL OF RIGHTS INALIENABLE RIGHTS. §1 All men are, by nature, free and independent, and have certain inalienable rights, among which are those of enjoying and defending life and liberty, acquiring, possessing, and protecting property, and seeking and obtaining happiness and safety. (1851) RIGHT TO ALTER, REFORM, OR ABOLISH GOVERNMENT, AND REPEAL SPECIAL PRIVILEGES. §2 All political power is inherent in the people. Government is instituted for their equal protection and benefi t, and they have the right to alter, reform, or abolish the same, whenever they may deem it necessary; and no special privileges or immunities shall ever be granted, that may not be altered, revoked, or repealed by the General Assembly. (1851)

http://www.legislature.state.oh.us/constitution.pdf

Every state has their own Constitution, but almost all recognize the INDIVIDUAL right to keep and bear arms, and the peoples right to abolish government, should they deem it in their best intrest. (usually if justice can't be obtained through the existing government, or if force is used unjustly against the people.)

Winterwind said: You said it is illegal to use force against a person.

No, I said it was illegal to INITIATE force against someone.

Do you understand the difference?

Winterwind said: If I murder someone, I go to jail. My point was, by the time I murder someone, someone is dead.

Yes, that is because life is objective, and concrete. You either are alive, or you are dead.

However, crime is either committed, or it is not. You can't prosecute people UNTIL a crime is committed, unless you stop that crime IN THE ACT. An armed individual has an ability to possibly stop that crime in the act peacefully (by deterring the would be criminal with the threat of deadly force) or non-peacefully (if the criminal refuses to cease and desist, and continues unjust aggression, by using deadly force) to stop them.

In the United States, you are assumed innocent until PROVEN guilty.

Winterwind said: The laws don't bring back the person, only prevention can do that.

Nobody claimed it did bring people back. Prevention is a viable tool, but as with all tools, it is limited to the scope of the methods available for prevention.

Winterwind said: For me, gun control is like washing your hands before eating, it makes it harder to get sick.

Thats a simple analogy, for a person who only demands a simple answer to a complex issue. Its also devoid of the facts of AMERICAN law, individual rights and objective evidence.

Winterwind said: God, don't make the same mistake millions of insurgents make all the time. They rarely win against tyrannical government with the guns they have, and the ones that do have a generally unstable government.The Revolution wasn't made possible because we were rebelling with our guns, it was because the French helped out. Normally, what happens when a group beats tyranny with violence, the most violent people keep the power. Example? Africa's freedom fighters, Mexican revolution after revolution. Chinese revolution. French revolution. Etc. In these days, the most effective way to beat the crap out of a tyrannical government is the Martin Luther King Jr way. With mass media, and humanitarian groups, it is so much better to ignore the gun and go for peaceful protests.

People don't revolt because they "think it would be groovy".
People revolt because they would rather risk death or die in the fight against slavery of the mind and body, than succumb to it.

I would rather die in the fight, no matter how grotesque, bloody or torturous, than live as a slave, which is exactly what you would be if you allowed them to revolk your rights, which aren't theirs to revolk. (which is why they use force to accomplish the goal)

The only beneficient ends of man are achieved by means that don't require the use of force, but that does not mean you should allow those who do operate by force rule the day, the world, or your life. In fact, it argues quite contrary to the point.

You have the right to ignore the RIGHT to keep and bear arms, but I have the right, and I invoke and reserve ALL of my rights until death do us part.