Why The U.S. Is Right And The Rest Of The World Is Wrong About Gun Ownership

12
464

You’ve no doubt heard many people argue that Americans are crazy as evidenced by so many of us fanatically holding on to our guns, and they would argue that a kinder, gentler way of living in our world can only happen when there are fewer guns. The people arguing this typically are either non-Americans or take the idea from non-Americans.

The problem with all of these arguments is that they are wrong. They don’t understand what gun ownership is about at it’s most fundamental level. Anti-gunners say that gun ownership is about wanting to hurt other people. Aside from the fact that these people have, apparently, never actually had a conversation with a gun owner (or they would know that gun owners aren’t looking for excuses to shoot people), anti-gunners misunderstand where the 2nd Amendment right to own guns comes from. Fortunately, someone named Dennis Pratt brilliantly answered a question on Quora.com about this. The question read:

Why does the U.S. think gun ownership is an inalienable right given that literally all of the developed world doesn’t feel the same way?

Pratt answered:

The Fundamental Right is Self Ownership, Not Gun Ownership
Gun ownership is not a fundamental human ethic [because it has not existed from the beginning of time], but a derived right from a universal human ethic — the right of self-ownership.

Think about that for a minute. Gun ownership is about the right to prevent someone, whether a common thief or robber, would-be assailant, or our own government from taking from you or your family your very lives, liberty, or property (possessions, not just land). In fact, Pratt continues by saying that “In fact, if I do not have the right to defend what I own, I do not actually own it!”

Oh, and for those who still want to argue that we should do it like they do in other parts of the world because… they do it that way in other parts of the world, Pratt has this to say,

Now, the [Original Poster] points out that there are many people in many countries who disagree that we humans have the right to effectively defend our own bodies from anyone, let alone from our rulers! The implication is that, because so many people disagree with us, we must therefore follow their lead and turn over our right to defend ourselves wholly to our rulers.

The thing about universal human rights is that they are true no matter how many people violate them.

Even if everyone in the world succumbed to government indoctrination and sophistry to believe that we do not own ourselves, but that our rulers do, it would still not change fundamental, universal human ethics.

But that’s not the case right now. And we’re just happy that one small part of the world still grudgingly recognizes our human right to defend the most important thing that we own — ourselves.

And we are not particularly interested in giving that up.

And that’s one of the basic things that this site is about: as human beings, you have the right to defend yourself, your loved ones, your liberty, and your property from those who would abuse or take that from you, and that means that you have the right to use whatever means are necessary in that situation even if that means firing a gun. Because, sometimes, that is exactly what it takes to stop violence and oppression.

12 COMMENTS

  1. What is the result of civilian gun ownership? Crime reduction. Prof. John Lott compared gun ownership with violent crime in every county in the U.S. His study was published by the University of Chicago with the title “More Guns, Less Crime”. After all, what does a criminal prefer, a victim who he knows is unarmed, or a victim who may be armed? Examples: Britain has the strictest gun laws in Europe. It also has the highest violent crime rate in Europe. On the other hand, Switzerland encourages every household to have a gun. It has the lowest violent crime rate in Europe.

  2. Look at all the problems that exist in the rest of the world and someone has the audacity to question our ethics, morals, or values. The important question is how come they all wish they were us!

  3. Yeah that is like back in 2004, when an Indian member of the U.N. actually said that people don’t have rights, Only Governments have rights! Unquote. The u.n. Should be told to get their asses out of this country! As they see themselves as the rulers of the entire world! A LONG WAY FROM THEIR ORIGINAL MISSION, OF NEGOTIATING WITH HOSTILES TO TRY TO PREVENT ANOTHER MAJOR WAR! DIPLOMATS ARE NOT BLOODY RULERS! JUST LITTE MICE! TIME TO LET THE CAT HUNT!!!

  4. What other people don’t understand about American gun ownership is the fact that we have a strong military but that is not all we have, if a hostile nation were to invade America they would be fighting our military and the average citizen who owns a gun we would not be helpless like other countries that do not have private gun owners, sure we would be facing soldiers but we would not be gunned down without a fight, when someone is shooting at you whether it is civilians or soldiers you have a tendency of taking them seriously so instead of being slaughtered we have a chance by owning a gun of living. That is why Japan did not try to invade during WW11 they knew private citizens had guns and would use them

  5. I compare guns to automobiles = one loose NUT( drunk or terrorist ) behind the wheel can and dose cause disasters= one loose NUT behind the trigger of any gun can do the same = remove ALL guns period. “Military to be included FIRST”. – DO YOU DARE! That would include all the BIG boy toys like BOMBS & cannons and tanks too. ANY thing that includes the Means of mass DESTRUCTION !! When you rid the world of that FIRST then I would give up my gun willingly.

  6. Where in the 2nd Amendment does it GIVE us the RIGHT to keep and bear arms?!?! IT DOESN’T!!

    Read the text and explanation below and you will see that the 2nd Amendment RESTRICTS (PROTECTS US FROM) the gubbermint from INFRINGING on our ALREADY God given right to self defense!!

    Text of the 2nd Amendment:
    A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
    And you gun grabbers conveniently disregard what the 2nd Amendment ACTUALLY MEANS!!!!
    What part of “…[t]he right of THE PEOPLE to keep (have/possess) and bear (CARRY) Arms, shall not be infringed.” do YOU NOT understand. The right of the people means, THE INDIVIDUAL has the right, NOT referring to an army (collective right).
    Research what was meant by the founding fathers when they referred to “A well regulated Militia”. Back then, they meant EVERY able-bodied man who knew how to handle a gun (meaning well trained) WAS the Militia!
    You must remember that the founding fathers used the meanings of the words when they wrote them, NOT THE MEANINGS USED TODAY!
    Considering the fact that if a man wanted his family to have MEAT, he had to go HUNTING to KILL an animal, USUALLY WITH A GUN/RIFLE! (You DO realize that back in the 1700’s, there were NO grocery stores with REFRIGERATED meat displays, where the woman of the house could go to buy a steak or roast to fix for dinner that night!?!?) SO MOST men WERE well trained, therefore WERE “well regulated” the Militia!

  7. It was always taught to me when I was in school it was to prevent our Government from taking our rights away and to preserve our Constitution. Also to have a militia to stop invaders! I still believe in both of those statements. There was and I don’t know if it still exist what they called the home guard!

  8. Despite what others might say, the above makes sense to me. Of course, being hard headed and old fashioned, I still hold to the premise that 2+2=4, it not having been demonstrated to be otherwise.

  9. In America, we are sovereign citizens. We are not subjects of the State! If our Gov’t fears an armed populace, good, that is as it should be, they work for us, not the other way around!

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here