Sorry dude - I had forgotten all about this lil gem of a thread [img]smile.gif[/img] .
In part one you argued that tyranny doesn't need to be blatant to generate a populist uprising - but your very words depict that it must needs be tyranny. That means that to some demonstrable degree it is required that there be supression of the people. For that supression to be ongoing it requires electoral supression or mass manipulation - so my point remains that that sort of usurption of power is not possible under your fixed term democratic two party system.
You argue that usurption could be envisioned to be possible. Well of course almost anything is possible, but my argument is that it isn't feasible or relevant in todays developed society (and I confine that specific to the US because I am disputing US law). Nothing you have presented has disputed my contention that the probability of such an event is exceedingly small. To use that minute probability as a means of promulgating gun ownership raises to a near certainty the prbability that someone will die needlessly from the abuse and misuse of a weapon that was "on hand". Note that I contine to restrict our debate to the effect of the 2nd amendment on gun availability without taking things to the next level of what is good or bad about gun control.
20 years huh - Thomas Jefferson sounds an impatient type - makes you wonder if he would suffer from road rage if he got stuck in modern day freeway crawl
.
You presented lots of examples of poor and greedy government, and looking through you would see almost equal numbers of poor administrations being voted the hell outta there as a result. If you ask me, the piece of legislation that needs fighting to be maintained is not the 2nd Amendment - it is the 2 terms only bit - that is why TJ hasn't had his 20 year revolution cycle - that is why populist uprising is reduced to a historical footnate in the US.