@yannigr: Your assumption that those who value the right to keep and bear arms "sleep with a gun under the pillow, and learn to shoot first, ask questions [later]" is typical of those whose only exposure to gun ownership is the stereotype presented to them by Hollywood and other media. Who's watching too many movies?
.
My guns are secured in a safe when not on my person, and I take very seriously the possibility of using deadly force, as do all the other responsible gun owners I know. I happen to live in a state where most people own guns. Violent crime in our state is a fraction of that in states with restrictive gun laws. A cursory study of FBI and CDC statistics will demonstrate that it's not the laws that make the difference in gun crime. It has much more to do with gangs, drugs, the breakdown of the family, education, cultural glorification of violence, et cetera.
.
It's interesting how you know the future and what it will bring. You somehow know exactly who would and wouldn't attack or invade whom and the circumstances that would incite it, even a hundred or more years down the road. Liberty is maintained through a governing framework that must last throughout time. Even if a need for all citizens to be armed in the context of resisting invasion is a hundred years away, the framework must accommodate that. This is not the only context, however, that supports the right to keep and bear arms, so trying to put it to rest entirely on an unlikely near-term scenario falls short.
.
I actually haven't seen Red Dawn (although I'm familiar with the storyline). Perhaps you missed my point about asymmetric warfare. It's often referred to as "insurgency", and it's wreaking havoc on US and coalition troops in the middle east. It's the reason Russia, in its might, eventually failed in and left Afghanistan. If ever there was a scenario when another nation attempted to impose itself on US citizens, on US soil, if our military was compromised or, more likely, other nations' military force became equal (or superior) in might and technology, insurgent resistance might be necessary.
.
We could wargame various scenarios ad infinitum, but that would be a waste of time. The real discussion ought to be about personal liberty. You might consider reading the book "The Law" by Frederic Bastiat (a French economist in 1850). It might help you to better understand or appreciate the views of people who cherish freedom.
.
By the way, to reference my first comment to you, when are you going to give up your car and campaign that all others do the same in the name of saving lives?
It would be far more successful than gun control...
.
One thing we can definitely agree on is having fewer (zero) wars abroad for various reasons. We can't completely ignore terrorist states acquiring nuclear weapons and things like that, but I'd much prefer if our military were home protecting our own soil, while maintaining its strength to deter or assist when justified. I'd much rather we develop the vast resources here in America than remain entangled in the Middle East.
.
Anyway, it's been fun!
.
My guns are secured in a safe when not on my person, and I take very seriously the possibility of using deadly force, as do all the other responsible gun owners I know. I happen to live in a state where most people own guns. Violent crime in our state is a fraction of that in states with restrictive gun laws. A cursory study of FBI and CDC statistics will demonstrate that it's not the laws that make the difference in gun crime. It has much more to do with gangs, drugs, the breakdown of the family, education, cultural glorification of violence, et cetera.
.
It's interesting how you know the future and what it will bring. You somehow know exactly who would and wouldn't attack or invade whom and the circumstances that would incite it, even a hundred or more years down the road. Liberty is maintained through a governing framework that must last throughout time. Even if a need for all citizens to be armed in the context of resisting invasion is a hundred years away, the framework must accommodate that. This is not the only context, however, that supports the right to keep and bear arms, so trying to put it to rest entirely on an unlikely near-term scenario falls short.
.
I actually haven't seen Red Dawn (although I'm familiar with the storyline). Perhaps you missed my point about asymmetric warfare. It's often referred to as "insurgency", and it's wreaking havoc on US and coalition troops in the middle east. It's the reason Russia, in its might, eventually failed in and left Afghanistan. If ever there was a scenario when another nation attempted to impose itself on US citizens, on US soil, if our military was compromised or, more likely, other nations' military force became equal (or superior) in might and technology, insurgent resistance might be necessary.
.
We could wargame various scenarios ad infinitum, but that would be a waste of time. The real discussion ought to be about personal liberty. You might consider reading the book "The Law" by Frederic Bastiat (a French economist in 1850). It might help you to better understand or appreciate the views of people who cherish freedom.
.
By the way, to reference my first comment to you, when are you going to give up your car and campaign that all others do the same in the name of saving lives?
It would be far more successful than gun control....
One thing we can definitely agree on is having fewer (zero) wars abroad for various reasons. We can't completely ignore terrorist states acquiring nuclear weapons and things like that, but I'd much prefer if our military were home protecting our own soil, while maintaining its strength to deter or assist when justified. I'd much rather we develop the vast resources here in America than remain entangled in the Middle East.
.
Anyway, it's been fun!
Facebook
Twitter