|
|
Post by AmazingDomo on Sept 3, 2013 17:37:31 GMT
Yeah, but if we made an effort to make sure criminals didn't get guns...there wouldn't be a body count. Simple logic. How are you going to keep criminals from getting guns? That is where your logic fails. That is where my logic fails right? So because criminals might still get guns anyway, we shouldn't have gun laws? That's your argument? So everybody should wield guns? What about at football games? Thousands of people in one place, all with guns. You expect that to turn out well? |
|
|
|
Post by John Liberty on Sept 5, 2013 0:19:46 GMT
How are you going to keep criminals from getting guns? That is where your logic fails. That is where my logic fails right? So because criminals might still get guns anyway, we shouldn't have gun laws? That's your argument? So everybody should wield guns? What about at football games? Thousands of people in one place, all with guns. You expect that to turn out well? Why do citizens need the protection of the right to own firearms? There are multiple answers to this simple question. The Founding Fathers saw the need for such a protection as they were familiar with the political reasoning of Baron de Montesquieu, William Blackstone, and John Locke; that governments derive invested powers from the people to protect and serve its citizens. On the same timeless reasoning, if the citizens of the government deem the government to have failed to properly serve the people or have broken its obligations to the people, then the social contract between the people and the government is severed; and it is the citizens’ duty and obligation to overthrow an unjust government infringing on the citizen’s rights. “The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government.” - Thomas Jefferson However, if the citizens’ ability to possess firearms has been suspended or suppressed, then the citizens would be helpless to fight back at an unjust government and would be put into an extremely dangerous position. For that reason, there was intense arguing of why protection of the right to bear arms had been left out of the constitution during ratification. Once the Constitution was ratified, a Bill of Rights was quickly added that guaranteed many freedoms; one being protection of the ability to own firearms. Enabling citizens to own firearms also allows citizens to protect themselves from domestic disputes that turn ugly and also from people who may intend to harm them. Robberies, muggings, trespassings, and other crimes are often kept in check by legal gun-owning citizens. A great example is 69 year-old Ethel Jones. When Ethel heard strange sounds outside her Alabama home at 3 A.M. she grabbed her gun from underneath the pillow next to her. She ended up finding an intruder inside her bedroom, forcing her to shoot him in the abdomen. The intruder survived and faced charges of second-degree burglary. Another example is the case of career criminal Kevin Duane Dudley. In November of 2009, Kevin Dudley walked into an Alabama business with a shotgun to commit armed robbery. Shoppers were able to distract Dudley long enough for the owner of the store to retrieve his gun and defend himself. The owner ended up shooting and killing the criminal. Later, the police found that Dudley had been tied to several robberies in the area as well as a recent murder. Regardless of the supposed "dangers", it is quite obvious that the rewards of a well-armed populace strongly outweigh the negatives. |
|
|
|
Post by DarkShadow on Sept 17, 2013 13:14:33 GMT
How are you going to keep criminals from getting guns? That is where your logic fails. That is where my logic fails right? So because criminals might still get guns anyway, we shouldn't have gun laws? That's your argument? So everybody should wield guns? What about at football games? Thousands of people in one place, all with guns. You expect that to turn out well? I agree with everything John Liberty said. ~DarkShadow |
|
