Sneakers wrote:
In Mexico, it is necessary to have a signature from the Army General to own a gun. No one can defend themselves against corruption, robberies, cartels, or "Los Zetas" (a mafia).
lol. Nice attempted correlation there, but Los Zetas take on Federales en masse, and the cops have guns.
Seramike wrote:
I won't make up some bs like my guns are for hunting, they aren't. They are to protect myself from my own gov. so I don't end up like the Jews. I suggest any Europeans go visit Auschwitz before they make a final decision on gun ownership.
More lol. If the US government decides it wants to take you out, enjoy shooting at an M1 Abrams with whatever pistol or rifle you got. Say bye to your ass either way though. They only real protection you have from your government is your fellow citizens.
Chazb0t wrote:
This... People don't commit crimes with legally obtained guns, so the fact that citizens are allowed to purchase and own firearms isn't the problem.
It is the illegal firearms market that is the problem.
Most of the "illegal" guns were once legal. They were either purchased in states with lax laws, at gun shows, or they were stolen from law abiding citizens during robberies. Otherwise there would have to be shipment after shipment of S&W/Glock/etc. being hijacked.
I'm in the gun ownership camp, but for none of these easily argued away points. I support it for the true militia aspect, like the Swiss. If those untrustworthy Canadians ever spew across the border, I want them confronted by army, navy, air force, marines, national guard, and any single other person they come across. If every Polish citizen were armed, Germany in WWII would have had their hands more full than we do/did with Iraq. And ultimately, everyone should have the right to defend themselves. Like I said, in medieval Europe, if you didn't have a sword, you got pushed around. This isn't the Middle Ages anymore, but the reasoning still applies.