No. They know most people now view the right to bear arms as more of a personal protection thing than a protection from tyranny thing. They know the current crop of Americans will never do anything to truly oppose them, lest they be labeled as racists or something.
Still, the right itself is more dangerous than the people carrying them, since other people might some day carry and be more belligerent. Imagine you imported the entire population of Sudan and the Congo. Would you want them roaming around with guns after they were done replacing the native populace?
That, and, if you're in power, and have the opportunity to disarm your opponents, even if they may never use them, why not hedge your bets.
No. They know most people now view the right to bear arms as more of a personal protection thing than a protection from tyranny thing. They know the current crop of Americans will never do anything to truly oppose them, lest they be labeled as racists or something.
Still, the right itself is more dangerous than the people carrying them, since other people might some day carry and be more belligerent. Imagine you imported the entire population of Sudan and the Congo. Would you want them roaming around with guns after they were done replacing the native populace?
That, and, if you're in power, and have the opportunity to disarm your opponents, even if they may never use them, why not hedge your bets.
(post is archived)