Quote:
|
Originally Posted by bulldogg Geo. Washington said it himself that if you are unprepared to fight a war you cannot have real peace. I say the same applies to the rights of the individual. Were it not for the second amendment I am quite sure we would have gone down the same path as the Europeans and the Australians. "Where the people fear the government there is tyranny and where the government fears the people there is liberty" - Thomas Jefferson
Here's some further food for thought... http://www.gunowners.org/fs9402.htm |
Responsibility or political ideology is not the key issue here. The key issue here is neighborhood protection.
The more firearms obtained by individuals in the streets, the more closer the country edges towards a higher homicidal rate involving firearms. I do not care whether citizens are law-abiding. They may respect the law today, but tomorrow they could become criminals.
National Defense should be handled in the hands of professional soldiers or law enforcement officials, not petty militias or gangs who can make a profit by forming a protection racketeering business in poor inner-city urban areas.
Whenever there is firearms, there are always gang wars. Or even perhaps worst, sectarian violence, insurgencies, or national rebellions. A good example of a country that has no restrictions at all is Iraq.
The Admendment for freedom to firearms is unnecessary since other rights in the Constitution exists. There is only one dominant protection racketeering firm in the US and that is the US Military itself. People pay taxes and they should recieve reliable security in return. If not....their government is a failure.
State exists because they offer the first service to the public: security