CWP Wk 4

Can the Government Keep Us Safe?

The second amendment states that, “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.” This means that all US citizens have the right to own guns. This is one of the rights that we possess as humans, whether or not a government exists. Some people (those who vote to increase gun restrictions) are under the impression that the government will be able to keep us completely safe and it completely justified in removing our rights in order to do so.

Are they right?

No.

This example explains the issue perfectly. In Europe, gun ownership and use is highly restricted–much more so than here. So consequently terrorists strike with any weapons they can find. Even with no access to guns, they bring forth just as much damage there as they do here WITH guns. Taking away guns isn’t eliminating the problem. Literally all it does is change the weapon with which people attack. When you take away access to guns, the only people who will GET access are the people who are willing to go around the law to get them. This means that all the wonderful law-abiding citizens who only want guns to protect themselves and others won’t have any while the law-breaking people will have them. And as I said before, even if no parties can get access to guns, the would-be-attackers will just find another weapon. You might ask, “Well if the attackers can find another weapon, why can’t the good, law-abiding citizens carry around a knife or something else to defend with?” Excuse me, have you ever taken martial arts?? While a gun-fight may not be safe, you can attack from a DISTANCE. Knives have to be up-close and personal where you can easily get your head shot off not to mention they’re FREAKING HARD TO DEFEND WITH. It takes YEARS of martial arts training to learn how to effectively attack and defend at such a close range when your opponent has a¬†weapon while it doesn’t take a genius to figure out how to shoot a gun and therefore stop something like a terrorist attack from occurring.

If the president is to be protected with snipers, why should we give up our right to protect ourselves and our property with guns as well?


Mises Institute; written by Judge Andrew P. Napolitano on 10/7/17

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *