Quote:
Originally Posted by joshbaumgartner
However, all of this only addresses the crime-related aspects of gun existance. There is another, very important side to this matter that I personally have underrated in the past, and that is the importance of retaining the citizen's capacity to retain their freedom from their own government, should it cease to be 'theirs' and become an agent against their rights as naturally and constitionally guaranteed.
While I think both sides are right on the crime issue, and that both approaches can work, I have personally concluded that the danger to people from crime and other threats within our communities are probably a price worth paying to ensure that we have the ability to keep our government working for us and not against us. It is also why I am adamant about needing to ensure as much as possible that those who do own guns are responsible and proficient owners. Unregulated gun propagation is very hazardous, and we see the results on our streets. If we want to have guns, and I think they are a way to retain the ability of revolt that I speak of, we have to be responsible with them.
|
I agree that this is the most important reason for citizens to maintain the right to bear arms. It has been speculated in other posts that if the writers of the constitution were around today that they would not have given us this right. I disagree and think they would have allowed ownership of even full auto firearms but would have probably drawn the line at WMDs. I think they would have wanted to allow us to have the personal firearms necessary to overthrow the government that they knew would probably become necessary some day.