Guns as a means to protect liberty

[lnrw]

[The Prophet]

[RoyBatty]

This argument is loaded from the start. As long as there are bad folks out there that can assault me or my family using tools such as knives, guns, superior numbers, et al., no government rule of law has any right to tell me I cannot stand opposed to that possibility - using the same kind of tools and technology the bad guys have at their fingertips. So of course it's my RIGHT to protect myself. If and when I break enough laws that I am considered a felon then I will have had many rights taken from me, one of which would be the right to bear arms. Until such a time, I have the inalienable right to shoot back when shot at. Full stop. As for dialing the police, until dialing 911 makes an armed bodyguard with a crack shot magically beam to my location instantly, I will never be told what I can or cannot do to protect myself and/or my family in the interim period, i.e. while the police put down their donuts and make their way to an assault location. Crimes of violence are - as a rule - lightning fast encounters, as such a reactionary police force is - by very definition - useless during such encounters.

As an example, in a country with some rather strict gun control measures in place (Canada), someone still attacked and rendered quadriplegic a woman in my old neighborhood, using an illegally obtained pistol. Happened long ago now, some time in the '90's if memory serves. In that situation (and many others like it), gun control policy failed to protect that woman from harm while simultaneously taking way her right to adequately protect herself in the government's protective absence. That she was legally rendered ineffectual during her own attempted murder is simply illogical.

Likewise, if and when the government of my country decides to attack their own people, I will hope said people were never "enlightened" enough to forget the lessons learned time and time again by many nations, U.S. included. Government sanctioned atrocities are happening as we speak. We can't ever become so complacent as to merely assume that would NEVER happen. It happens, and as such it can happen anywhere, given the necessary variables and bad luck. Being armed in at least some sort of counter-measure, and capable to amass some kind of opposing force, this is one in a series of checks and balances present against government tyranny run amok. It may only be symbolic these days, but that doesn't make the concept any less important. Even if only a token armed opposition is possible against a governments vastly superior armories and numbers, something is always better than nothing. Even a bulldozer has to stop when a large enough obstruction gets in it's path. The only other option, sans the rights to weaponry we have under the constitution, (in a worst possible case scenario) is to simply lay down and die. The right to bear arms is as American as it gets, admirably and rightfully so. It basically tells us that we have the right to choose between "live or die fighting" or "live or die cowering".

And as an aside, comparing Arab 'nations' to the US on any constitutional or procedural nature is the same as comparing an apple to an elephant. Entirely different cultures, with entirely different principles.

[The Prophet]

I see the 2nd Amendment as not just a right but a mandate. The word necessary makes it one. The amendment States it is necessary for the security of a free state. It does not say "it might be a good idea or maybe we should" Its states very clear that the right to keep and bear arms is necessary to the security of a free state. Freedom is not given by men nor was ever meant to be controlled by men. The individuals right to protect himself was deemed to be self evident. In fact the founders felt all rights pertaining to personal liberty were self evident.

[Stratego]

[Stratego]

[Ozzone]

[Stratego]

[PoS]

[PoS]