Same goes for owning guns, it's a bad idea to let the average person own them.
Your turn to think very closely about something, now. No knee-jerk reactions, here, no blindly spouting the party line. Exactly why
is it a bad idea for the "average person" to own a firearm? Are average people the ones who do bad things with them? Is it honestly your opinion that a full 50% of the population would use firearms to commit crimes or otherwise behave irresponsibly with a gun if they had one? Really? Yikes. I wonder what kind of people you keep around you, that you have that perception. I hope to God that none of them have a driver's license. Argue what you want about the accessibility of firearms making it easier to commit certain crimes or violent acts at the spur of the moment; I won't deny that. But at least accept that that
is the real question at issue here, not
whether or not the average person is such a fumbling moron or blood-crazed lunatic that they simply can't be trusted with a firearm. If that ever does become the main issue, if it ever gets to the point that the average citizen really can't
be trusted with a firearm, then there really is no hope for us at all.
You do understand that it's not illegal to own a tank, a warship or a warplane, right? You understand it's not "The Law" that keeps those out of the average citizen's hands? It's the expense. Granted, owning the live ordnance is a bit trickier, but you are free to own all the tanks your little heart desires, assuming you can afford them.
What I find interesting is this thinking that "you would stand no chance against the US government if it ever did come to that, so why do you even need guns?" When did rolling over and taking it become the recommended plan for dealing with oppressive regimes? What does that say about someone, as a person, that they think that is the best course?
It's sort of wrong thinking to equate guns with liberty, true. If it came to that, we wouldn't
stand a chance. My hunting rifle would mean exactly squat when the drones come. But it's equally wrong to think that the rights of citizens protected under the Constitution, set in law at the founding of the country, should be circumscribed purely due to the actions of the tiny minority who abuse firearms. People throw up their hands in rage and disgust when Electronic Arts encumbers their games with abusive DRM, infringing upon the rights of the majority to enjoy their legally purchased product in the name of protecting the game from copying by the pirates. The amount of righteous fury surrounding the launch of SimCity was astounding. But do the same thing with the right to own a firearm and it's not only no big deal, but it's the right thing to do? And yes, it is a valid comparison here. You have a right that's being infringed upon for the sake of "safety" due to the abuse of a minority. The only difference is one of severity: the right to enjoy a purchased video game is not
a Constitutionally protected right; however, the right to bear arms is
. Circumscribing an amendment to the Constitution (and one that was once considered vital enough that it came second only to the right to free speech) is just definitely not
something that should be taken lightly, or enacted on the basis of knee-jerk reactions and bogus "think about the children" rhetoric coming from the same administration that has the drones and no compunction about using them.