Great point in right to own guns debate

K

kkimmes

Inactive
I was having a civil discussion with a friend that has been swayed into believing the latest gun ban bills are a good idea. I came up with a discussion / argument he could not find a way to refute.

Simply put, I asked him to imagine that the most oppressed and criminal countries (Iran and North Korea are the example I gave) of the world developed nuclear abilities. If the UN then pushed for the US to give up their nuclear weapons, what would you want the USA to do?

Of course he wants the US to maintain a great National Defense system and to keep nuclear weapons if such a situation was to occur. I asked then why we as citizens would want to give up our defense system (our guns) when we know the most oppressed criminals of our country have guns.

His silence was very rewarding.

Just my latest two cents worth.......
 
Last edited:
Ask him why it's ok to discriminate against gun owners, but not women who engaged in sexual relations? Doctors can refuse to to take on a patient if there's a gun in the home, but pharmacists and doctors are required to stock and provide Plan B.
 
not to be a wet blanket but My reply to the nuke question would be..."how many people have been killed by nukes in the past 50 years"

The issue with nukes and guns is the mentally deficient people could use them, including criminals. THEN..,in the case of guns, all the idiots out there jump on a gun control bandwagon that ONLY affects law abiding citizens.

cuomo's power, and the supporting idiots should all be voted out. IF he makes it to the presidency, he'll turn the entire country into a NY dictatorship.
 
Thanks for pointing out the North Korea example. It has been changed.

Regardless of how many have died, by asking if he wants the US to give up nuclear arms, he feels that the "good guys" who are responsible (The US in his mind) should be able to keep nuclear arms. He WANTS the US to have nuclear arms, not different than I WANT to keep my ability to protect my family against thugs and criminals...
 
not to be a wet blanket but My reply to the nuke question would be..."how many people have been killed by nukes in the past 50 years"
Click to expand...

How many people might have been killed by nukes if the U.S. and our allies had not maintained our own stockpiles as a deterrent? The point of the argument is that since the bad guys are going to get theirs one way or another anyway, it makes little sense for the good guys to give up their own.
 
That's a fantastic argument, Not sure ,"..oppressed criminals..." . was the best wording but a fantastic analogy nonetheless. My compliments for your efforts to protect all of us.
 
How many people might have been killed by nukes if the U.S. and our allies had not maintained our own stockpiles as a deterrent?
Click to expand...
This is a really good point, and one that's often missed in the the debate over the so-called "insurrectionist" interpretation of the 2A.

During the Cold War, we had this idea called Mutually Assured Destruction. The Soviets wouldn't strike at us because it would spell the end of their nation, on a level worse than any concept of total war. On the other hand, we wouldn't strike them for the same reason.

(All of which led us into a couple of disastrous proxy wars, but that's another story)

The point is, we never sank to nuclear war. Deterrence is the key word here.
 
(All of which led us into a couple of disastrous proxy wars, but that's another story)
Click to expand...
Tom, you hit the nail on the head here sir. That IS the storyline happening right now, this instant, THIS proxy war(s). You and kkimmes make an old man think. Thanks.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top