Quote:
Originally Posted by FRED HALE SR.
I understand all of that and even agreed with Duga on the fact. My point was that the people who would be handing over guns voluntarily would be people such as myself not criminals who are the basis for the argument originally. That is where the problem lays, you have to take away more civilian rights in order to attain this goal which then leads to more asinine takings of civil liberties.
I'm obviously against the taking of innocent life but I will never surrender to the fact that I should not have the right to bear arms. And drink up Tore its gonna be a long weekend, why search for URL'S that i'll never agree with anyway.  |
I think this seems rather close minded. There are plenty of countries with stricter gun laws and less violence which still has fair civil liberties. It's perfectly possible. Why not learn from that?
One could argue that some sort of principle that you should maximize your amount of civil liberties is anti-societal. After all, society is about giving up freedoms that you'd otherwise have for the benefit of everyone. You give up the right to kill and rob others because that makes it better for everyone, you included (unless you're a robber/killer). Similarly, you should be prepared to give up your right to own guns if that makes it better for everyone. That should be the principle; increased life quality for the people who live in society. Not maximum freedom.