Replies

While I believe this pragmatic argument is in the favor of freedom, it does not mention one of the most important uses of the Second Amendment, which is to counter government power and secure freedom.

Additionally, the Second Amendment rests on the natural right to self defense and life. For the sake of argument, if more lives were being lost to criminal misuse of guns, than were being saved, it would only show the need for more training, as clearly there exist cultures such as Switzerland, which are permeated with guns, but have virtually no crime.

Significantly, there are several states in the United States with similar statistics.

Finally, life cannot exist without risk. Nearly all gun "accidents" involve people who have decided to take the "risk" of owning guns. Owning and using a gun is far, far less risky than owning and using a car, or even a bicycle.

The government should not be a nanny that tells us what risks we can and cannot take. Life *is* risk. The only time you have no risk is when you are dead.

A nanny statists will try to make the argument that allowing people to own guns allows criminals to access them through theft. However, that argument has been ruled out of bounds by the Supreme Court in Heller, where it held that we all have the right to own loaded, unlocked pistols that are in common useage, in our own homes.

A car is every bit as dangerous as a gun, yet almost everyone have or can get access to a car.
Accidents happen but the quantity of intentional damage and death using cars is very low compared to the number of responsible users.
That tells me that the vast majority of people are responsible.
Yet, why do libs always assume the worst when it comes to gun owners?

I can save the gummit a ton of money by making people pass this simple test before issuing a firearm:

What are the 2 cardinal rules when handling a firearm?

Sadly, many Americans could not get this right (Always assume it is loaded and never point it at anything you don’t want to destroy).