Why Americans have guns

The real reason Americans like to own guns


People from other countries and even American citizens; especially indoctrinated Democrats often are confused why regular Americans have guns. In so many countries, only the "authorities" are allowed to have guns. Only the military and maybe the police. It seems illogical and even crazy to these people that a citizen would have a gun. Okay, okay; some of these people will argue that maybe a person can have a gun for hunting but that should be restricted to hunting clubs where the guns are controlled and regulated to the club and not allowed in individual homes.

Further, the arguments against owning guns is that we no longer live like they did at America's founding. We're not running around in the wilderness. People don't need an AR-15 to hunt rabbits. There is no reason to have anything more powerful than a shotgun (Joe Biden's argument).


But the real reason the founders of America wrote the 2nd amendment is not for hunting rabbits or even for self protection while running around in the wilderness. The 2nd amendment, whether Democrats like it or not was written specifically to give citizens the potential ability to overthrow the government. This isn't my opinion; it is the explanation from those who actually wrote the amendment. The Federalist Papers #46

"[If] a regular army, fully equal to the resources of the country, be formed; and let it be entirely at the devotion of the federal government; still it would not be going too far to say, that the State governments, with the people on their side, would be able to repel the danger...it may be affirmed with the greatest assurance, that the throne of every tyranny in Europe would be speedily overturned in spite of the legions which surround it. Let us not insult the free and gallant citizens of America with the suspicion, that they would be less able to defend the rights of which they would be in actual possession, than the debased subjects of arbitrary power would be to rescue theirs from the hands of their oppressors. Let us rather no longer insult them with the supposition that they can ever reduce themselves to the necessity of making the experiment, by a blind and tame submission to the long train of insidious measures which must precede and produce it." -- http://www.constitution.org/fed/federa46.htm

But it could be argued and is argued that the 2nd amendment is now pointless because even with all the guns in the hands of citizens, they could not repel the danger or speedily overturn the legions which surround and protect the U.S. federal government from revolution. It is no longer merely an insult to tell the gallant citizens of America that they are unable to defend their rights; it is a fact.

If Americans are dispossessed of their ability to potentially overthrow a potential oppressor, then indeed we have been reduced to blind and tame submission. If our arms are limited to one shot buck shot or to knives under 3.5 inches; what possibility do we have to ever potentially overthrow a corrupt federal government. None; thus the anti-gun advocate would argue that we should give up our guns completely because the 2nd amendment is now not even effective.


So, perhaps that's the point of the anti-gun advocate, to ultimately disarm us all; except for the "authorities" or the "experts". Since their original arguments of telling us the 2nd amendment was outdated failed, they now argue the purpose of 2nd amendment cannot be accomplished and should thus be abandoned. Every tyrant in history first disarms the public then begins to impose what he or she thinks is best for the "people".


However, I'd be willing to see a compromise. Even if the 2nd amendment is fully effective, one individual need not own and possess an exorbitant amount of fire arms. You can only shoot two guns at once. We should become suspicious wherever someone amasses a large cache of guns. Their motive is less about potential overthrow of a corrupt government and rather gives them the potential to make a "government" of one where they impose what he or she thinks best for the "people" including their potential slaughter.

I would argue for the allowance of ownership of even more powerful guns, yet with the limitation on the amount one person could own. I would encourage more Americans owning a gun and being taught its purpose. And people who use guns outside their purpose; such as criminal acts of robbery and murder should lose those rights and many other rights.

I am British a foreigner, who has no moral right to lecture to you. As a friend of America however, I say that even owning one powerful gun in the hands of a mentally unstable individual exposes the community to severe potential harm and distress which can be avoided by rigorous controls and oversight. I also am unable to persuade myself that owning a gun by every American gives them the ability to overthrow a bad government. In the hands of a determined autocrat, a Saddam like character, most Americans would I suspect, flee rather than face the wrath of such a person who would no doubt have sophisticated technology at his command and disposal. On balance I would rather give up the right to satisfy a fanciful privilege than have to face seeing the pain and distress so many individuals can suffer.

Add new comment

COMMENT POLICY rodericke.com philosophy of transparency, honesty, and liberty allows for guests to make comments without registration or login. Note all comments will be moderated but most legitimate comments will be published even if critical. -- Thanks for commenting - RECENT COMMENTS