Quote:
Originally Posted by alexamenos
This statement isn't quite fair.....it may very well be that very broadly dispersed gun ownership amongst the citizenry carries with it a threat which keeps the government in check. In such an event, the right to bear arms is serving the exact purpose it is supposed to serve.
|
I understand. But while that is fair for you to say, the fact remains that is a side-effect. You could also say that as a side effect of keeping the government in check is we have some unfit people owing guns. But ultimately I retract the 2nd amendment argument for the time being.
In regards to the people getting guns illegally vs. getting them legally: just because someone can get heroin illegally doesn't mean you should just legalize heroin "shops" everywhere. The case I can bring up here is the latest one in Arizona. This guy went through the legal channels, which somehow allowed him to get a gun and wreak havoc.
Just because people can get things illegally doesn't mean you just roll over and give up. You try to stop illegal gun trafficking and make sure that people that get guns through legal channels are fit.
As an aside: I believe guns in general do more harm than good, because people aren't mentally prepared to use them, or don't know how to use them; and in some cases, aren't mentally fit to use them.
If you have got the training, are mentally stable, and see a need in having one, then I think you should have a gun. But I bet many, if not most, people who own guns don't meet the criteria.