Seems a bit paranoid. I don't recall government ever pointing a gun to my head and demanding I do anything at all. Even selective service didn't point a gun at me and tell me to take up arms for my country. I have indeed been threatened with due process, but that in no way involves a fire arm.
Okay let's follow this road to the end rather than stopping at the beginning.... For example, a peaceful person thinks they own themself, their property or the fruit of their labor, the situation and the resultant use of force applies in many instances.... In any of these scenarios, the continued insistence to be left alone results in what ?
Sometimes the gun is apparent and used right off the bat, other times they play games and send threatening letters etc, but the final stop is ALWAYS the gun for failing to submit.
The eventuality of the gun is NOT in question, it is only a matter of WHEN.
ONLY thru submission is their gun holstered, ONLY thru paying money or obeying what are often illogical and unconscionable laws can one AVOID the gun.
Your attempt at dismissing my statement as "paranoia" is irrelevant. Even if a person IS paranoid, they can be correct when applying observable logic can't they?
I will however submit you are in DENIAL, that the gun exists.
As far as a literal "gun" yes that does exist, but you have my permission to extrapolate the meaning in the post of the "gun" as the use of force, theft of property or incarceration et al.
The fact that there IS a selective service is another example of the government gun....yet you persist in thinking that what happens, because it is frequent and regular, (normal) that it is somehow acceptable and moral.
As far as taking up arms for your country, just because you aren't literally pulling the trigger, you ARE buying the bullets now aren't you?
