I believe a government that truly serves the people is obligated to grant civilians the right to bear arms
I want you to present arguments against this stance.
I recognize that:
>the purpose of a firearm is to kill
>punching holes in paper and "plinking" are only afterthoughts
please be civil :)
>>2752612
why would I argue against this?
>>2753977
>sturmpuppen
That pic is my screensaver
>>2752612
why are they obligated.
as long as civilians can´t get anything heavier than a .38 handgun, fine
>>2754906
why .38 specifically?
>>2754906
>civilians
There are only freemen.
>>2754910
it´s lethal but you won´t turn your street into Aleppo either
>>2754910
are tanks and nukes arms?, where do you draw the line.
just look at america crime rate
>>2754938
>just look at american minorities
>>2754938
Just look at the Honduran crime rate
>>2754938
Beats Russia, tee bee aytch.
>>2754910
Because that's what John Howard said.
>>2754938
...and yet, if it wasn't for gun free zones/cities (where the extreme majority of gun crime ironically happens), the US gun crime rate would drop to Switzerland-levels.
Thank you Democrats for the gun-free zones, they sure do prevent gun crime!
>>2755029
Gun-free zones are surrounded by states and counties in which you can buy guns for a ridicolously cheap price.
That shit never happens in Europe, the average hood rat don't even know where to begin when it comes to buying guns, and even if he manages to do so.
>inb4 "muh terrorism"
Every terror attack is a tragedy, but those don't even come close to the daily US death toll: you would need several terror attacks everyday in order to match that, even when you take the whole EU as a sample.
I don't know you and I don't trust you with a gun
> I don't know you and I want a gun
Exactly, there is no right or wrong. There's only the majority opinion that gets made law.