Originally Posted by NZ Benz
You know I've stated in a number of threads that I'm pro gun ownership with reasonable restrictions and licensing of owners.
What I do not accept is the notion that for any nation to be free it needs to have an armed population, that’s ridiculous all that happens then is you end up with a situation like the US where people carry simply because the criminals carry and how did the criminals get weapons? Through lax gun control laws what you end up with is an urban arms race based on fear among the general population.
Here the police have access to guns but don't carry, I feel safe on the streets in my city at all times of the day and I feel no need to carry weapons, I have enough faith in my political leadership and our checks and balances to not need to stockpile arms to possibly fight my own government, that type of paranoia is IMO a symptom of a nation of hypocrisy: The US is such a free country where the government serves the people yet the people feel the need to arm themselves to such a degree and they fear the government they elect and even with all the checks and balances that are present there is still a reasonable possibility that their government may turn on them.
And even if the government did be it state of federal level the national guard or federal army would wipe out any resistance so arming to protect from the government is just not practical as you don't have access to that kind of hardware so what are you trying to prove?
The fact is that with a decent police force that’s more interested in community policing rather than carrying out a political sideshow called the war on terror you don't need to live in constant fear like you do, and if your not afraid why own a gun that’s to be used in any other than a recreational sense? Because it's in the constitution? You’re not seriously going to tell me that you purchased simply because some arcane post colonial document that was written when California was owned by Spain and the Midwest by France when the world was so different from what it is now said so?
There is no argument for the fact that gun ownership makes you enjoy your freedom more as the original poster inferred, I'd only carry a gun for protection if I thought I'd have to use it and because I don't feel I have to use it I feel much more free than anyone who would live in enough fear to feel the need to be armed in their own home.
You overstate the degree in which folks in this country "arm" to protect from their government. While it is a basic argument of that amendment to the Constitution, it in reality has near NOTHING to do with gun ownership in this country. My guess is that LEO could list the number of folks/groups that take that philosophy to an active level on two pieces of paper. It is just not that big of a group.
You cite Lax Gun Control Laws as the reason for escalations of an "urban arms race". Other than gang on gang, that concept is minimal at best. As for lax gun control laws, the Metropolitan areas with the most strict gun control are also the ones with the highest crime rates. The problem is the poverty and ancillary crime and drugs and lack of jobs that builds these areas to the war zones they are. I hate using the gunfreak slogan but it isn't the spoon that makes Rosie fat.
You seem to put a lot of stock in the concept that folks have fear. Very few do. I don't know where the thought that we have roaming bands of fearful people started. I know there are people in some urban areas that are fearful of going through some neighborhoods. I know there are some places that I will not hike any longer due to drug issues. But those are few and far between.
You say there is no argument for the fact that gun ownership makes you enjoy your freedom more. Maybe not to you. But maybe others see it different. That is their right. I don't see that ownership as a bolster to freedom, but that's just me.
There are a lot of folks in this country that take their own responsibility for their lives. That includes health, safety and security. I am one of those. It is not from fear that I keep a firearm. I doubt that I will ever need it but on the 1:1,000,000 chance that I do, I would rather have it than not.
I know we have a good police force. I also know that in the past year we have gone from zero to 30 home invasions in my town of 250,000 as drugs have moved from Cincinnati to the south.
I further know that should the worst happen and I am not prepared, even with the best police force in the country, the first thing the police are going to do when the get to my house after an event like that would be to call the ambulance or coroner's wagon for my family or me. The police insure the safety of society, it is MY responsibility to insure the safety of my family.