|Community >> View Post|
Subj: Re: Because They're Not Just Made For ONE Thing (War.).
Posted: Mon Feb 19, 2018 at 03:19:03 pm EST (Viewed 641 times)
Reply Subj: Re: Because They're Not Just Made For ONE Thing (War.).
Posted: Mon Feb 19, 2018 at 10:14:34 am EST (Viewed 595 times)
Quote:First, there are justifiable homicides and self-defense.
That is also true of any other country.
Quote:Secondly, the cops show up AFTER a crime has been committed.
Again, this is the same elsewhere.
Quote:Also, guns also have other uses. Pistol shooting is an olympic sport, are you going to write this to the olympics?
Yup, still nothing unique to the US of A.
Quote:I see no reason to drive a race car, therefore why should I or anyone else be allowed to partake in that dangerous sport?
This is a straw man. Nobody argues against no guns at all. However, just like you could not drive a F1 outside of a racing track, you should not be permitted to use an M16 outside a military environment (military competitions included).
No, to me, it look a lot more like it is a question of how many US of A citizen are socialized than anything else. That socialization also impact on how the laws are made and how people see the ownership and use of such tools as legitimate in so many situations that would simply not be acceptable anywhere else.
If you genuinely beleive it is your "second amendement duty" to maintain a stockpile of weapons that will keep the governement in check in the event it would go bad (noble intention), you will have to get yourself some tactical weapons down the line (nukes and chemical weapons). I mean, if you can't rival with the governement's military power why go that route? You are either going to be uncompetitive with the possible evil Government, or things will get very ugly fast when everyone will want to remain competitive (specially if the weapons remains as easy to get because "second amendement").
I'm using the tactical weapons in my example above in a half-joking way to underline just how ridiculous the that amendement appears to me in the context we are in today (my opinion). The spirit of that amendement is completely outdated or, if not, incredibly dangerous to maintain considering how we have evolved as a society and how far we travelled technologically since it was included in the constitution.
Even if it is to protect yourself from thieves, adding a fire arm on top of the one the thief may carry will likely lessen your chances of getting home without injury. It is a considerable risk to pull a gun when another gun is already in play. Anger and fear mixed with survival instincts means your neo-cortex won't be the driving force and mistakes will be lethal.
Sure, you should not let anyone rape or murder you (nobody will ever argue such nonsense), but frankly, they can have my wallet without a fight if they are that stupid or desperate. Cops and insurances are there for the rest and if not, at least I did the best I could to remain alive and well.