@Teamguns, I provided two instances on why public should be armed. I'll repeat them for you here.
(1) Millions. Literally Millions of Jews were disarmed and turned into ashes by their government. This was not that long ago. Yes, this was 80 years ago and in Germany, but what makes you think we are different today?
(2) The US had laws prohibiting blacks to own guns (no right of self protection) and actively failed to prevent lynchings. Now that we have a 'racist president' content with letting Brown Puerto Ricans die, is it that far of a stretch that government wouldn't provide safety for a group of people?
If you think that armed insurgents can't provide effective resistance against the US military, I ask you why are we still in Afghanistan.
@Ranek, do you find that people aren't convinced by your logic IRL as well as on the forums?
Interesting thread. So you basically want to discuss gun control after the vegas shooting, even though you dont see any reason to discuss gun control. thats pretty much as retarded as the reasons for playing down your issues with guns.
No, Gun control is currently being discussed while people are emotional. This thread serves as a rebuttal to those conversations.
Further, I'm not playing down my issues with guns. I'm am stating that there is a reason to have guns.
As stupid as it sounds, guns don't kill people, people kill people with guns. If you take away the guns, there are countless other ways to commit these tragedies. Just look around and you will see many other ways that people have done it.
First, we have permitted the Federal government to govern us provided they respect our rights.
Second, the Second Amendment is one of our rights we have reserved for ourselves, regardless of the reason.
Third, even if the Second Amendment is repealed, for whatever reason or method permitted by the Constitution, you still have the practical effect of hundreds of millions of guns already in existence and utter failures to enact bans of illicit objects in the past.