You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
RE: The Gun Control Debate, there are actually THREE sides
One thing that is true everywhere, is that people who have personal arms are victimized far less than people who are disarmed. This is why the murder rate in London is now higher than the murder rate in New York City.
Law abiding gun owners use their personal arms millions of time a year around the world to prevent being victimized by criminals. That's why law abiding gun owners have guns.
Yes I enjoy contemplating the perspective and case from both sides. I am stuck on the points that making laws to somehow control the people who don't follow laws is not very productive, and that people needing an AR for hunting or a musket-originated amendment in the USA doesn't seem to make sense either.
I do remember, in all my time in Houston, them saying if you wanna shoot someone, just drag them onto your property ;) I bet store robberies and home invasions are less likely to happen in areas of concealed carry than not.
First, regarding muskets, recall that government's best tech was the musket. Since the right of free people to defend themselves is the basis for the Second Amendment, it is necessary that the right to possess arms reflects adequately the technology progression.
If civilians have similar arms to government, government is necessarily restricted to that to which it's subjects are willing to tolerate. When government--or any gang of thugs--possesses significantly more effective weapons than it's subjects, that government inevitably devolves into tyranny.
We see this happening now across the EU.
Free Tommy!
Ah well that makes sense. If the thugs/government is going to come at you with muskets, you defend with muskets. If, 200 years later, they are going to come at you with AR-15s, then you have the right to bear that.
Never occurred to me thanks!