Reasons for having firearms:
Any organism has only two directives: to survive and to reproduce. It's been observed that humans are distinct from other animals in that they use tools. Firearms are tools used to survive. Note that technology, once created, cannot be destroyed, so arms now can only be regulated by a monopoly of force (whether we're talking about firearms or nukes). A person who doesn't own his own arms when given the opportunity, abdicates control of his personal well-being, and surrenders himself to the benevolence of his neighbors. Not everyone is moral, so this isn't a good idea.
In a capitalist society, possession of means is power—the power to get what one wants. Rather than work for material wealth, some people acquire it by force. Therefore, a successful capitalist will necessarily possess the capacity to keep his wealth secure. A person who does not believe in bearing arms is not a true capitalist. Such a person, who expects the government to regulate his life, is really a socialist or a communist.
Anyone who believes in stocking away gold or food for a SHTF scenario, which is a wise diversification, needs to be able to protect those resources.
That was a sort of tongue-in-cheek answer, but I believe it. The truth is, I just like guns. Some people dig fast cars or gold watches or whatever, but to me, guns are more interesting (not that I don't like cars or watches). I don't trust the government, and I refuse to rely on the police to come to my rescue if I get robbed—cops are only there as a deterrent and to clean up the mess after the fact. I believe that the only freedom one has is the freedom one is willing to fight to hold on to.
Opinion on "no infringement" of the 2nd Amendment:
There should be no infringement. Anyone of the age of majority should be able to obtain a firearm. Background checks presume that you may be denied the right to purchase. That only happens when the government decides to exclude certain types of people. Currently that is felons (note that unauthorized computer access [!!] in many states is a felony) and people with psych issues, including veterans with PTSD. Consider that both of these groups are very subjective—I would call them arbitrary. Therefore NO individual should be disbarred the possession of arms, unless they are 1) a minor without parental approval, 2) in retention for the commission of a crime, or 3) serving a criminal sentence.
However, that applies to one's property only. Bearing arms in public is a separate matter. While Vermont Carry is admirable, not all places would like to have people carrying openly and unlicensed. Therefore, each state should be able to institute licensing of CCW as they see fit. People need a license to drive on public roads—but NOT private roads—so the analogy makes sense. Socially, that makes sense, too.
Another bit of food for thought: much of the argument about the right to bear arms centers around the value of human life. Personally, I think the life of someone who would kill another to steal his stuff is worth less than dirt. The ACLU would have you believe differently, but they're crazy. In the case where a bad guy took a gun on rampage, the armed good guys would shoot him dead, and that would be a GOOD thing. The Bible's "Thou shalt not kill" is a mistranslation: it really is closer to "Thou shalt not murder". Unprovoked killing is bad. Killing in self-defense is good. Until people agree on such value judgements, the argument about the right to bear arms won't get any less contentious.
No comments:
Post a Comment