From the great YouTube channel of LiberalViewer.
What do you think? Is it a "false sense of security" that gun owners enjoy? Of lawyers, guns and money, which is the least necessary to protect our freedoms? Should the right to keep and bear arms really be considered an essential right for citizens of a free society?
"Should the right to keep and bear arms really be considered an essential right for citizens of a free society? "
ReplyDeleteYes. The Founders didn't put it in the Bill of Rights just for the hell of it.
If you don't like that particular freedom either move somewhere else or try to repeal it. If it's the latter I'm still not giving up my guns.
It depends on what you mean by freedoms. If you mean freedom from government action only, then guns are probably the least useful of the three. But if you mean freedom to preserve yourself against all threats, including criminals, then guns are the only one of the three that are worth a damn.
ReplyDeleteXrlq said, "But if you mean freedom to preserve yourself against all threats, including criminals, then guns are the only one of the three that are worth a damn."
ReplyDeleteYeah, "all threats," just like the Ruby Ridge and the Waco boys did.
Thanks for stopping by with a comment, by the way. But, don't you think a good point was made about this in the video?
To me this is sort of like asking, "Which of the following three is least effective in preventing motor vehicle disasters? Seat belt, brakes, or spare tire."
ReplyDeleteSure, you'll use the spare tire a heck of a lot less than your brakes or seat belt, but if you ever get a blowout in the middle of nowhere and you're without a spare tire, you're gonna wish you'd been lugging one around.
It's the same way with guns. You can own one and never have to use it to shoot anyone, or even point it at another human being. But if you ever find yourself unlucky enough to be in a situation where you *really* need a gun but don't have one, well, let's just say your last thoughts will not be favorable to the idea of civilian disarmament.
In other words, you need all three, regardless of the frequency or likelihood of use.
Yes, money and lawyers are better first lines of defense than firearms — usually much better, in fact. But should they fail, all the cash and courtrooms in the world won't stop the half-dozen gang members smashing their way through your living room window at 3 AM, or the platoon of armed mercenaries marching toward your city. Citizens with firearms will do the trick, as they have in Korea, Vietnam, Afghanistan, and Iraq when we tried it, as a matter of fact.
"Of lawyers, guns and money, which is the least necessary to protect our freedoms? "
ReplyDeleteConsidering so many of our elected officials are former lawyers, i'd say lawyers.If it weren't for lawyers, many of our freedoms wouldn't even be at risk.