Guns to fight tyranny?
NBC News reported that a lawmaker in Texas defended on Fox News Sunday morning the availability of high powered 'assault' rifles - as many call them - to protect Americans against a tyrannical government. I'm rushing now but I've gotta look this up and watch, for it may be as funny as it sounds.
I'm sure he's not advocating shooting police officers, the front line of the government (local, state or federal, yes, but officers represent law and order and hence government in general). Don't need fancy weapons for that... just ask the families of the many officers gunned down when responding to typical calls. One in East Grand Rapids was killed with a shotgun by a man lying in wait as the officer responded to a call for help reporting domestic violence.
Then there's Patrick O'Rourke's family, mourning the loss of their father and husband, a longtime West Bloomfield police officer.
But I get it, this Texas gentleman is referring to the federal government, which taxes us and interacts with other countries through the United Nations. So if wants weapons available to fight that government, he'll need to legalize surface-to-air rocket launchers and small nuclear weapons, because nowadays, no militia is going to go up against our U.S. military and do any damage.
If that fight is going to be fought, it will be unarmed people being killed in what we now call terrorist acts. Is this political debate becoming so irresponsible? (And I'm not even considering the ludicrous idea of requiring teachers and administrators to be armed and trained to fight off other armed militants.... you know how much more taxes we would have to pay for schools if that were mandated?)
Here are the comments of Texas, hm, er, U.S. Rep. Louie Gohmert, as quoted by Livewire.com's Talking Points Memo: