Denying the people's right to self defense is the ultimate human rights violation.
Forcing people to leave their security in the hands of a governing body is not only preposterous, but out right criminal. It is impossible for a government to protect their citizens 24/7, a police officer takes minutes (after a phone call has been made, if it ever was made) to get to the scene of a crime.
If the citizen of a country that has forcefully disarmed it's citizens by means of confiscation or threat of criminal charges, gets harmed in a situation where the use of an outlawed weapon could have protected them, THEN the governing body of that country should be held accountable and compensate the individual or their family for failure to effectively prevent or stop the crime from being committed.
We all know this would never happen, but it details just how weak and subservient we as a people have become.
EVERY MAN HAS THE RIGHT TO A FIREARM, NO EXCEPTIONS.
There is no morally sound counter argument against this.
Some might claim that the safety of the majority is at greater risk if people are allowed to carry weapons, the problem with that claim is that they are assuming that the police is protecting them now, when its been stated earlier that they aren't. A criminal will break the law and get access to guns regardless.
GUN CONTROL ONLY HURTS CIVILIANS NOT CRIMINALS.
Liberal anti-gunner's fear does not stem from the idea of firearms, but from the idea of having to be responsible for their own safety.
This argument also extends to the type of weapons one man can carry. The musket our forefathers used (which were state of the art at the time) are no match for modern day machine guns, therefore the people must have access to them to ever hope to stand a chance against a criminal government.
Laws that place restrictions against certain weapons are a direct infringement and should be attacked or ignored.
Aren't you supposed to be posting on reddit? Most of here agree with that.
Julian Robinson
I'm searching for newfags and canadians
Jayden Sanchez
If guns are such a good idea, why the fuck don't we have the right to bear guns in Europe?
Colton Ward
>refute this wouldn't if I could
Chase Nelson
Because your handlers don't want you to rebel.
They saw what the French did
Aaron Garcia
That would interfere with the ongoing cultural enrichment program.
Isaiah Scott
If guns are so great, then why is Japan doing so great without them?
Xavier Reed
T-thanks.
Caleb Parker
2 main reasons.
1) They are a strictly homogeneous country that heavily restricts immigration. It's no debate that homogeneous countries are far less likely to suffer from wide spread crime, thankly due to a shared culture that values respect.
2) There is crime, more than Japan likes to report. Japan is a perfectionist that likes to keep their image of a safe utopia, so much so that they refuse to investigate violent crimes like murder if certain evidential criteria aren't met. Sometimes they straight out just falsify their crime stats.
Ian Sanders
Whatever baby dick bitch
Oliver Bell
I'm in agreement with you OP. But like you said, "it'll never happen"- I used to get infuriated at the thought of such injustice, then, after years of seeing it worsen, and reviewing history... I see there is no remedy. there may be uprisings to combat it, "peace and order" last for a period, but the issue always rises up again. My solution... get the fuck away from large groups of humanity. live in the outskirts, and only deal with people when have to. too many brain washed pansies that happily immerse themselves in the distractions distributed by those in power, allowing corruption overtake their nation...
Camden Lewis
>homogeneous, westernized, shame-driven society >on top of that, they doctor their crime statistics
There you go.
Samuel Green
I've seen this thread quite a few times over the last week or two, very similar words each time. Have these been you? Can you summarize the arguments you've seen on each side? Nothing elaborate, just bullet points.
Alexander Rogers
Yup it's been me.
3 main things you got to focus.
The criminals that will break the law because they're criminals
The absurdity of outsourcing 24/7 safety to a governing body that can't be trusted with tying your shoe.
And last but not least, putting civilians on equal footing
Jeremiah Clark
Who is this in the picture?
Ethan Walker
Who is this semon demon?
Ayden Thomas
Why is this little faggot wearing a wig?
Chase Richardson
Not an argument.
Jayden Baker
elaborate
Henry Morris
>they refuse to investigate violent crimes like murder if certain evidential criteria aren't met. Please elaborate, particularly the criteria part.
