Dear Reader,
It seems to me that.
The argument against gun ownership goes something like this. “Because guns are dangerous, and some people will use them to kill people, they should be made illegal.” The premise is that dangerous rights should be limited. It should follow then, that the more dangerous the right, the more limits that should be placed on it.
What then, is a more dangerous right, the right to keep and bear arms, or the right to free speech? History shows us that free speech is far more dangerous than the right to keep and bear arms. Marx and Engle’s Manifesto has been the philosophy that has led to the murder of millions. Mien Kampf, caused the German people to go insane, and visit the Second World War on mankind. Two modern examples of the danger of the right of free speech. These two event alone account for the deaths of 160 million people.
So taking the logic at face value, that the right to keep and bear arms must be limited, we must logically believe that the right to free speech must be curtailed as well.
To argue that the merit of free speech supersedes the negative possibilities of Genocide (Rwanda), Revolution, Wars of aggression and Religious friction, seems weak. Those are pretty negative side effects.
Free ownership of guns leaves no segment of society without the last resort of the Penultimate Right of Self Protection. The catastrophe in Rwanda would have not been possible if everyone had guns. The Hutu would have been able to begin the genocide, but would have been stymied at the use of guns for self protection. Unarmed victims are easier to murder then free citizens carrying guns.
