By: joe

joe — Wed, 10 Mar 2010 16:54:45 +0000

1. Criminals who want a gun will get them, even if there are strict gun control laws. Only the law abiding, future crime victims, will obey the ban. This is no reason to own a gun, simply because criminals can own them. The deeper meaning behind this reason is that criminals will take from you unless you are equally armed, but there are many fallacies in that statement, the more important being your likelihood of meeting up with a criminal armed with a gun, which is pretty darned low. I’ve lived near DC all my life – gun capital of the world – and have never been a victim of a gun crime.
2. Banning a constitutionally protected thing because some people will misuse it is wrong, ineffective, and unconstitutional. No one will convince me that gun ownership as referred to in the Constitution – A well regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed – means individuals have a right to keep and bear arms. It’s a militia they were talking about, and a militia is a group of people engaged in the defense of the “free” state. Even if it was “enshrined” in the constitution – and it was not – that does not mean the details of gun ownership should apply to ever Elmer Fudd you meet. The framers did not envision this country’s rural population would turn into a mass of gun-toting fearful white trash.
3. Most guns are never used in a crime and most gun owners are law abiding citizens; we should not ban guns just because some people choose to misuse them
Most atomic bombs have not been used in crimes. Should we allow everyone to make atomic bombs? Or, heroin users, for the most part, are not criminals; we shouldn’t ban heroin just because some people choose to misuse it. The premises and the logic are both irrelevant.
4. Guns are the great equalizer
One does not need a gun to be strong, and that is the problem with this statement. It also reveals the stated belief that there is a weak/strong dichotomy in society, that the speaker is experiencing it, and fearful of it. It would be just as easy to assert that there are many other people, not gun-owners, who make little of their position in society relative to either the weak or the strong, who repudiate the idea of competition itself, and would indeed be safer simply because there were fewer guns around.
5. Although I live in a good area, which has an effective and professional police department, I feel better at night knowing that if I were left with no other choice, I could use a firearm to defend my family’s lives.
Closely the author approaches here the very basic, perhaps most cogent reason for desiring a gun, and that is personal feelings and preferences being associated with “freedom.” These preferences generally appear mild as long as they do not other. If anything, this is the version of freedom alluded to in the Constitution, but it does not come about by government’s permissiveness, allowing individuals to carry things that can kill, to make the individual feel “safe.” Government doesn’t grant things, and we are not beholden to government (say, to serve in the armed forces) where we do not believe in the cause. Neither is withdrawing by law a consumption, for example, alcohol, any reason to consider the separation between government and the individual any bigger: the expectation is that as an individual, one does not go along with any law which, by its nature, may infringe on that persons individual precepts. That’s what true freedom in a democracy means to me. It’s the reason I am free to say no to gun ownership.

By: john10217

john10217 — Thu, 04 Mar 2010 16:08:29 +0000

gun do not kill people they just make the bullet go faster

By: john10217

john10217 — Thu, 04 Mar 2010 16:06:58 +0000

we should keep gun but only pistol and shot guns and snipers there no need for machine guns

Comments on: 5 Reasons to Support Gun Rights and Oppose Gun Control

By: joe

By: john10217

By: john10217