Gun Control & RKBA

My answer: "I don't."

It is time for you to shift it into neutral because you missed the point of the OP.

In case you'd like help with that -
A- Excessive limits on the RKBA are not in general steps toward tyranny.
I say this because many governments place limits, some of which are excessive, on their people's RKBA. This doesn't mean such countries have tyranny. While tyranny will usually enforce severe limits on arms, the limits do not innately bring tyranny.

B- Rather it is the maintaining of said rights and freedoms which demonstrate that tyranny is absent.
I say this because, as I said above, "While tyranny will usually enforce severe limits on arms, the limits do not innately bring tyranny." I value a government making the effort to demonstrate it being subject to the people rather than the reverse.


My final musing is my own inference of a thought of the Founders. They instituted a form of government respectful of the pre-existing state governments and of the people in general. In reading the 10th Amendment: (The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.) acknowledges that relationship. The vote in local, state and federal matters and elections is another demonstration of the effort to trust the people. I can in specific see voting rights being removed for certain acts but not for crimes in general. I think some states impose that but I'm not sure. Once again, I'm against it. I didn't reference prisoners. I can see why you drew the conclusion you did but I don't have an interest in seeing political limitations enforced on those in jails and prisons.

Here's a rephrase you can use: The vote is a demonstration of the trust government places in the hands of the people as is the RKBA.