SHOOTING at the OLYMPICS

[kendo65]

Given the vehemence of the arguments here on both sides, can I offer a hypothetical question...

There has been a lot of talk about the need for guns to defend oneself/family/freedom from a government gone wrong or bad, with the implication being that the U.S. may at some point in the future (if not already according to some people) be ruled by such a government.

In such a scenario those in favour of gun ownership see themselves as potential defenders of freedom.

Here's the hypothetical bit: supposing that after several more shooting incidents of the kind seen recently a big majority of the US population and both main parties switched to advocating stronger gun control. Supposing that a democratically elected government expressing the will of the majority of the people enacted to enforce these measures.

What do you do? Do you reluctantly admit to the democratic will of the people? In such circumstances you can hardly see yourselves as still upholding freedom and democracy?

(I suppose what I'm getting at is that in Europe there seems to be more of a distrust and fear of loose amalgams of people or organisations that may be armed to the teeth and possess certain political views than there is of democratically elected governments. The general mindset here is that we need good governments to protect the population from whatever rag-bag set of extremists with a grievance that may come along...and that consequently it is wise to limit the availability of guns so that such extremists can not challenge democratically controlled police and armed forces)