3 ms·
You preclude the two most common reasons as if they are irrelevant. It's like asking 'Why not ban cars in principle? What's the motive behind owning a car, besi
by johngalt 13y ago
You preclude the two most common reasons as if they are irrelevant. It's like asking 'Why not ban cars in principle? What's the motive behind owning a car, besides transportation, and status?'
I'll answer your question anyway. Besides concealed carry and hunting; the freedom for civilians to own guns is necessary for the security of a free state. Protection from tyranny and oppression.
- rooshdi 13y agoWhile I understand concealed carry for self-defense, if a first world government, especially that of the US, wants to truly be tyrannical, they will. They have nukes, stealth bombers, drones, and god knows what nowadays.
- johngalt 13y agoThis is the common response. What chance would civilians have against a tank or a modern attack aircraft? What isn't mentioned is the fuel truck supplying that tank. How easily one bad bearing can cause a jet to crash. There are 1.5million active duty military personnel. 80 million civilian gun owners. That is a non-trivial difference in numbers. I doubt a boomer captain would follow an order to nuke Seattle. Regardless of the situation.
- rooshdi 13y agoPeople said the same thing about Hiroshima.
- Turing_Machine 13y ago[citation needed]
- rooshdi 13y agohttp://www.museumsyndicate.com/item.php?item=56630 http://www.museumsyndicate.com/item.php?item=56630
- Turing_Machine 13y agoThat's not an answer. Nukes and tanks are useless in a guerrilla war.
- deleted 13y ago[deleted]
- deleted 13y ago[deleted]
- rooshdi 13y agoThat is the answer.