Here's my (unpopular) view on guns. I strongly believe that guns of all strips should only be possessed by the military, police force and government officials. These groups of people are here to protect the interests of the State while lowering the risk of more gun related injuries. In extraordinary cases, however, wealthy citizens may own and carry guns.
Well well, you sure are on the wrong side of the equation. Guns of all strips ? care to explain ? Or why rich people can have unrestricted access to guns ?
Well, in early studies of Florida's concealed carry permit holders, the permit holders were found to have a lower rate of violent crime than police officers per capita. Makes no sense to only allow police and military to have guns. The other thing is the police are not available at a moment's notice. My gun is.
Your very first post, hmmm. OK, benefit of the doubt re a poorly disguised troll; in a police state, only the police have guns. Why wealthy people?
Ah yes - the state should have a monopoly on force. Great way to bring an end to any ideas of freedom and liberty, that.
Hence why the Founding Fathers were wise enough to warn us against such opinions. This is why We have the Second Amendment, I shudder to think where We might be if not for the Second Amendment protection ! And scratch the Military off that list, they are pretty much disarmed most of the time.
I live in a country much akin to the one the OP describes. I do believe that the state should hold the monopoly on force. Someone has to be top dog or all the little dogs will fight. Now, I could do that for myself. And the reality is, I expect to. But ultimately, if you think you can't trust the state to do this, (and I do not trust my state very much at all), all you have to do is remember the alternatives. Either the state does this, or I do. Take your pick.
Hmm.. Sounds like prison would be your 'happy place'. You think meals, shelter, (re)education, and healthcare should be provided free of charge too? Definitely, then... prison is nirvana for your sort.
It's hardly worth responding to this thread. America was established by and for people who disagree with the OP. He should have understood that before he posted.
There are countries just like you describe....you should try living in one, see if it stops crime, see if it stays a trust worthy government, see if the poor live any better. Report back to us in six moths or so, I would be interested in your experiences.
You mean you would rather call the police and hope your family is still alive than protect yourself with a gun? As far as I'm concerned, the police can clean up the mess and chase whoever gets away. That's what they can do better than me and they have my absolute respect for what they do.
That was proven untrue after 1776. Right now, the gun "problem" is with all the gangsters killing themselves in the Liberal Strong holds like chicago, LA, etc.... I suppose the cops are picking a few off too.
Either we both agree to accept the state as the monopoly provider on the use of force, or you will have accept me as the monopoly provider on force. Because I will never accept you. If you want to surrender your country to anarchy, you may. But I wouldn't expect life to get any better for you. The local hardman will make you his bint. The problem for you is that in an anarchy, you won't be able to protect yourself and your family. You might be able to defend yourself from the odd crank, but not the organised criminal gangs. So really you have two choices. Accept a higher authority you don't trust, or accept a higher authority that you really really don't trust. There isn't any point in this where you get to be "free" except when you are dead. No matter how many guns you own, you will never be free. Ravill If the police can't provide the monopoly of force in Chicago or LA, call the army. If you leave a security vacuum, gangs will fill it. Either you disarm them, kill them or be ruled by them. Can you do it on your own, or do you want the state to do it for you?
WOW...I really mean just WOW!!! You can trust yourself and your families lives to the government if you want......Me and my family, we will trust ourselves to our own talents. The odds are in my favor no matter how much you think the government is there to protect you LOL!
You don't know my friends and family. My 3 sons all know how to handle a gun. Even my 14 year old. I live in a very private neighborhood and we watch out very closely for each other. I know which neighbors have CHLs and which neighbors are fellow veterans. I have very good relations with the local police. (including my neighbors) If we see a suspicious vehicle in our neighborhood, the whole neighborhood knows about it within minutes. We have an APP to stay in communication with each other. When someone dies in our neighborhood, we assign somebody to watch their house during the funeral and provide meals for the remaining spouse and family if necessary. You can depend solely on the police if you want, but I have close friends who have my back and that's the way it should be.
And when the state maintains a monopoly on the use of force, and sets the rules that you must live by, what is the course of action when government does not intervene to stop the organized crimes from engaging in unlawful demonstrations of force against the people?
Then you are entirely dependent on them to protect you. By "protect", I don't really mean protect; to be completely accurate, I mean preventing bad people from harming or terrorizing other people. "Oh, but why wouldn't police protect me?" you may ask. To answer as plainly as possible, there are some cases where they cannot or will not protect people. Most people here have never or will never encounter such a situation (thank goodness) but it could happen in the future and is more prevalent in certain other countries in the world. And I'm not talking about you protecting yourself individually. Someone who stops a bad guy, through his act, protects everyone around him. Look, I'm not talking about everyday situations, but there could be an emergency situation in the future, and do you want everyone to be left unprepared? Sometimes the State doesn't always protect its own interests, ironically. And what guarantee do you have that the interests of the State are always going to be the interests of the people? I agree. Good observation. Wealthy middle class people are very very unlikely to ever misuse the guns they own to commit a violent crime. Gun control laws are often aimed at problems among a different strata of society... But really, a big part of this all comes down to the principle of the thing. Are people free? Can they be trusted with the ability to defend themselves? And if not, what type of society are they living under?
"These groups of people are here to protect the interests of the State" That's why the people can never be allowed to be disarmed.
'These groups of people' are here to protect the interests of 'THE PEOPLE' not the state, individual liberty being one of the most important that countless among these groups have given their lives to protect, it's the principal behind our Constitution and our Bill of rights.
In a democracy, peaceful de-selection of failing government staff. Or if direct action is your thing, you might consider peaceful protest. Ghandi style sit ins or withholding your taxes. Or... if you don't like the peaceful method, revolution. civil war. The problem, with the civil war method, is that the cure is worse than the disease. You live in America which is a nice country. Not Somalia. Try and keep it that way please.
Hey man, I don't live in chicago and I left LA. See what I did there? I removed myself from a bad situation. When my country was formed in 1776 we decided to take care of ourselves. And even in 1776 we were smart enough to see that even the government can have problems. The revolution in 1776 wasn't pretty. And how did that cure work out? Worse than the disease? I didn't think so. You just said this is a nice country.
