scottie said:
FreeTalkLive said:
1) The right to defend yourself and your property is the most important right.
2) A rule (not a law) was just passed that prevents non-cops from carrying guns in the capital building. What I'm trying to do, is make sure a bunch of the folks that voted for that rule are removed from office. Almost all gun restrictions are horrible and must be removed. And I'll keep working at it until it happens or I die of old age.
|
1) Yeah, agreed. But you have to consider that by owning a gun, you are (may be) impinging on other people's right to safety. I'll accept that you are most likely responsible with your firearms and wouldn't let something like the story in the OP happen to your household. So of course you would breeze through the qualification process for getting a gun if they were to require a license. But someone who might lose their gun, leave it where a child can find it, or have it stolen is endangering their entire community and thus impinging upon the right to safety of many people. I argue that by denying these people firearms, the right to safety is granted to the majority, whereas if these people have firearms, only the minority has their right to safety upheld (and if they're really irresponsible they're no safer with a gun than without)
2) Ignore for a second that this is a public building. Lets say I move to America. If I put up a sign on my gate that says 'the owner of this property asks that you do not carry a gun on this property. If you do carry a gun, the police will be called to deal with your trespassing.' This is well within United States law, and I would argue that this is required for my right to safety. If you feel unsafe without a gun, you have the right to not come over to my house to play video games. Same argument could go for any private business, at the owners insistence. Why then are those who work in the public service denied the same right to safety as those who work in the private sector?
|
Your points seem to make sense for someplace where guns aren't good and more guns aren't great. However, what I would like to see in NH is more guns in the hands of more people. If most people had guns, maybe we could get rid of most of the cops where I live. That would save a lot of money in taxes. Some of the towns near me already don't have cops.
I already live in one of the safest places in the US. We already have the 2nd fewest amount of cops in the US and near the lowest taxes. But maybe even more guns would mean even fewer cops and taxes and more safety.
You see, guns are needed to protect people from criminals (something cops aren't able to do in most cases as they respond after the case), wild animals, and government agents. Guns were used in the past revolutions and may be used in future revolutions (though, personally, I'm against war). Millions of guns in the hands of private systems is also important for the defense of the US, more so than even the US military, IMO.
![[Prototype]](https://www.vgchartz.com/games/boxart/2846586AmericaFrontccc.jpg)
