www.theatlantic.com
Because existing gun owners are allowed to be irresponsible with their weapons?
Do you imagine I say that when you have an internal conversation with me inside your head?
You argued that if the second amendment allows for the individual ownership of firearms in case these individuals should be called into the militia means that the only way to read this is that all citizens MUST own firearms or “the entire argument falls apart”. This is interesting position to take because literally nobody defending the amendment has ever argued that the second amendment requires firearms ownership, or that serving in the militia is the only legitimate reason for bearing arms. Ergo, your attack on the position that the militia being drawn from an armed population means either everyone is either required to own firearms or it does not allow for individual ownership at all is a straw man. You have attacked a position that no one made.
No, you made the argument that this requires all people to have firearms. I said that it is silly to think that the average fellow at the local gun range could be used in any meaningful way in a military force.
All these arguments are that guns are useful in slowing down a foreign power - but the argument most often made by second amendment advocates is that guns can be used against tyrannical American government, which none of these examples are like. Furthermore, the advancement of military technology is far outpacing that which gun owners have, so I think examples that are even ten or twenty years old are meaningless. Basically, your typical gunowner fighting a tyrannical American government will get killed by drone and never put their sights on an actual person.
Gun owners should take responsibility for their weapons and not expect to take away my rights to property to subsidize the real costs of gun ownership to society.
So, you think that you have the right to my property because I must subsidize your gun ownership and your reason is because other people put burdens on my right to property. That is, your average gun owner is just like the out of control drug addict. I see.
You might want to check the coverages out. I would question whether it would cover a deliberate act of murder on your part.
Are you willing to pay for the damage criminals do if the victim was unable to protect himself/herself?
I already do. Why, do you think you’re special because you own a gun and, in your head, are willing to protect yourself?
You don’t pay the costs of victims of crime. They do. A number of states, including mine, have “crime victims compensation funds” assessed against convicted criminals. But the serious criminals pay nothing, largely because they can’t. Otherwise, the victims pay for it.