A Report From Obama’s “Humane” Drug War

[SamuelRSmith]

curl-6 said:

SamuelRSmith said:

curl-6 said:
Never said control laws were the ONLY factor. (And the effectiveness of these laws have to be taken into account too) In Brazil, for example, they may be fewer guns, but they are very uncontrolled in practice.

Guns, like driving a car, (and reproduction in my opinion) shouldn't be a right, you should have to be rigorously tested to see if you are deemed responsible enough for it.

Why is defending yourself not a right?

The Founders of the United States did not agree on much, just about everything in the Bill of Rights was heavily debated. The one thing they all agreed on, however, was the 2nd Amendment. After all, they know that without guns, they still would have been under the tyranny of a king.

There are plenty of ways to defend oneself besides guns.

And fair enough back in the 18th century but the US is no longer fighting for independence.

How do you defend yourself without a gun when the other person has a gun?

As for your second point...

What about when Hitler first took the guns from the Jews before he started rounding them up?

What about China?  Would Tiananmen Square had been such a massacre if the students carried guns?

Would Burma/Myanmar or North Korea be in the same situation today if the people had guns?

Your argument is ridiculous. Sure, Americans are free from tyranny now. But that's only because of guns. By removing guns you make it so much harder to repel tyranny in the future. To think that "it won't happen" is a foolish notion.

As Jefferson said "When the people fear the Government, there is tyranny. When the Government fears the people, there is liberty". An armed populace is the number one way to keep the Government fearful.