Nice to see a fake libertarian actually refer to the possibility of revolution. Brings a tear to the eye so it does!
The archaic-libertarians dream of revolution, are too cowardly and dependent on the state to ever do anything about it, and would be first against the wall and shot by the very people they "supported" when it was over.
I don't know where I stand any longer on the descriptive scale of politics. Here is what I can tell you to be true: In the 1980s to early 2000s (before the Internet was all the rage), there existed constitutionalists, survivalists and activists. They met in each other's homes and in public meetings. They had legal teams, survivalists (now called preppers), political activists, and anyone else that was supportive of individualism, unalienable Rights, and Liberty in general. Today whether you hide behind the D or the R label; left or right; Democrat or Republican, you're probably being led by those who want the Nanny State (D) or the POLICE STATE (R.) It's two sides of the same coin. Even the Tea Party wants to build up a massive government that has god like powers and, if it became necessary to resist them, you couldn't... compliments of the Republicans. I don't really dream of a "revolution," but America is coming apart at the seams because everybody thinks government can solve their every problem. And while they demand action, they cannot offer up any solutions. They're happy and content to complain about it on the Internet... be it here, some other board, Facebook, Twitter, etc. If they have to get off their ass, go to a physical meeting, have personal contact with their congresscritters, defend their remarks face to face with their fellow man, then they are most conspicuous by their absence. Peace and plenty makes cowards out of men.
I'm not talking about killings with guns, I believe that is well down. I'm talking about violent crimes in general. When victims become a known easier target, a certain type of person will take advantage of it. For instance, rape. Are you becoming a society where women have to plan their day around the availability of male escorts?
That does not mean access was controlled. It just means there were more convenient tools at hand. Look at Europe, when guns are available they use guns. When guns are not available, they use cars and trucks and drive into crowds. When they cannot drive into crowds, they use bombs. Think.
Lower, because they have far fewer Psychopathic homicidal kookaloos, bent on Murder. Giving credit to Gun control, makes little sense. You have law abiding citizens, and you have criminals, Criminals tend to shoost people, law abiding citizens tend not to shoost anybody, but Criminals, So to pretend that gun control saves lives is dishonest, because criminals will obtain firearms by any dishonest means. Law abiding citizens will respect and obey gun laws.
First prohabition. Then, "The War on Drugs". Now they are trying to ban guns. Based on the first two, how do you think banning guns will work? It won't. It is nothing more than an authoritarian utopian fantasy.
Until all / most of rapes are reported / prosecuted the biggest movement in those rapes will be the education around reporting those rapes. Put it this way, people werent raping less previously because they thought the victim might shoot them.
The Puckle gun was invented 70 years before the 2nd Amendment was ratified and was a Gatling gun with removable drum magazines. It was referred to as a "machine gun" in a 1722 shipping manifest.