Gun Control
Strict gun control works against the interests of freedom and democracy, and thus the people. An armed populace is the best detterent to the development of tyranny. If the people are armed, then rulers can be kept in the role of servant, and prevented from ascending to master. Those in command are forced to keep the will of the people in mind, or they may face an armed uprising. Without an armed populace, a leader need only secure the backing of the military and law enforcement and he becomes unchallengable, a de facto dictator.
Gun bans have allowed many atrocities to proced with ease; for example, Milosevic's ethnic cleansing in Kosovo. The victims were unarmed. They were without defense when armed men came for them. Also remember, in early America, it was only the patriot's possession of muskets that allowed them to defeat Britain. Without arms, not only would they have been subject to British tyranny, but a worsened British tyranny. The king would have no longer had to worry about the possibility of colonial revolts.
Gun bans are ineffective in stopping crime. Criminals by definition do not obey the law. Burglars, gangsters and murderers will be able to find weapons on the black market. Does anyone honestly think that they wouldn't out of respect for the law? Sure, a cop might happen to come across the man's weapon before commits a crime, but the advantage to law enforcement in these few cases is not worth the trade-offs.
Gun ownership can actually act as a crime detterent. Most criminals are not looking to be killed. They will give serious thought before victimizing someone who they believe is well armed.
Beyond all of this, it is everyone's responsibility to protect oneself and one's family. Why deny an honest man a weapon with which to do this?
I have mixed feelings about lesser forms of gun control. I generally support banning convicted felons from owning firearms, though I sometimes question the trust-worthyness of our government and criminal justice system. Might they convict honest men simply to prevent them from owning a gun? Gun registration seems like another reasonable option, but might a list of gun-owners be misused? Would they be the first targets if someone attempted to sieze power? While these may seem like the deranged musings of a conspiracy theorist to you now, never underestimate man's lust for power, and remember to also always look towards the future. While it seems unlikely that anyone would be able to sieze power from the people now, we must install safeguards for our democracy's future.
Freedom is priceless, we must pay whatever price there might be to protect it.
Strict gun control works against the interests of freedom and democracy, and thus the people. An armed populace is the best detterent to the development of tyranny. If the people are armed, then rulers can be kept in the role of servant, and prevented from ascending to master. Those in command are forced to keep the will of the people in mind, or they may face an armed uprising. Without an armed populace, a leader need only secure the backing of the military and law enforcement and he becomes unchallengable, a de facto dictator.
Gun bans have allowed many atrocities to proced with ease; for example, Milosevic's ethnic cleansing in Kosovo. The victims were unarmed. They were without defense when armed men came for them. Also remember, in early America, it was only the patriot's possession of muskets that allowed them to defeat Britain. Without arms, not only would they have been subject to British tyranny, but a worsened British tyranny. The king would have no longer had to worry about the possibility of colonial revolts.
Gun bans are ineffective in stopping crime. Criminals by definition do not obey the law. Burglars, gangsters and murderers will be able to find weapons on the black market. Does anyone honestly think that they wouldn't out of respect for the law? Sure, a cop might happen to come across the man's weapon before commits a crime, but the advantage to law enforcement in these few cases is not worth the trade-offs.
Gun ownership can actually act as a crime detterent. Most criminals are not looking to be killed. They will give serious thought before victimizing someone who they believe is well armed.
Beyond all of this, it is everyone's responsibility to protect oneself and one's family. Why deny an honest man a weapon with which to do this?
I have mixed feelings about lesser forms of gun control. I generally support banning convicted felons from owning firearms, though I sometimes question the trust-worthyness of our government and criminal justice system. Might they convict honest men simply to prevent them from owning a gun? Gun registration seems like another reasonable option, but might a list of gun-owners be misused? Would they be the first targets if someone attempted to sieze power? While these may seem like the deranged musings of a conspiracy theorist to you now, never underestimate man's lust for power, and remember to also always look towards the future. While it seems unlikely that anyone would be able to sieze power from the people now, we must install safeguards for our democracy's future.
Freedom is priceless, we must pay whatever price there might be to protect it.
posted by Mike M at 3:59 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home