The root issue of an armed citizenry has less to do with guns than this one question:

"Does an individual have an inalienable right to self-defense?"

Your answer to this one question has to define your position on the gun issue, but your opinion on guns is the [b]result of[/b], not the [b]cause of[/b] your answer.

Centuries ago, the root issue had nothing to do with guns either, as guns did not exist. However, the root issue manifested itself in the current hand-held weaponry of the day; knives, swords, and bows (and if you were [i]really[/i] strong, the jawbone of an ass).

Centuries from now, the root issue will have nothing to do with guns. Hand-held weaponry two hundred years from now will be radically different than that of today.

So, you see, guns are not the root issue. They should not be the rallying cry. They are the [b]result[/b] of our stance on the "self-defense" issue, not the qualifier.

If you believe we have the inalienable right to defend ourselves, our families, and our property from harm, then you must believe that the exercise of that right is relinquished when we do not possess the hand-held weaponry which is available to those who seek to harm us.

If we are relegated to defending ourselves with fists and feet while our attackers pull knives or guns, we have lost our right to self-defense.

Well Taken Point.  The real issue may well be the Right to Self-Defense.  As soon as whatever the next generation of hand-held weaponry is becomes available, that weapon should be available to citizens.  The usefulness of gunpowder-based firearms will be finite at some point due to new technology.  We may be nearing the end of that period.  And I want the same ability to defend my family and myself that I enjoy now.

Pro's stand behind the firing line, Anti's stand next to the backstop. [;)]

LOL

Very interesting perspective [b]Wobblin-Goblin[/b] - thanks for planting this thought-seed.

I agree, too many antis [b]and pros[/b] are so damn fixated on the "gun" and not the principle.

It seems the principle of self-defense is just too amorphous of a concept for many to discuss at length on both sides.

But the trivial details of black rifles, bayonet lugs, magazine capacities and gun-homicide statistics are so much simpler to grasp for the  Empty-V/ GoodMorningAmerica/ USAToday /Bryant/Katie/Dan/Oprah - fed sheeple.

Maybe one of the (un)intended consequences of the dumbing-down of our people is to disable rational discourse on the essential principles of liberty leaving only irrational arguments over the various forms of inanimate lumps of metal and what the thoroughly dumbed-down Gangbanga/thugs are doing with them.

The shifting of discourse away from Freedom,  Self-reliance, and Self-defense and towards trigger locks, handguns and "assault weapons"  has been very successful.

Discussions about the founding principles of this nation are being forgotten and replaced with trivial arguments on both sides about flash suppressors, handgun statistics and ridiculous slogans like "Guns don't kill, people do".

I've yet to see a single bumper sticker touting the idea of self-defense as a [u]principle[/u] of "human rights".  

But then maybe that's because the concepts upon which our nation was founded are just too highbrow for the bumper-sticker mentality of today's sheeple.

btt

Antis never look this deeply into the debate about guns. They look at it this way: guns kill people so if we outlaw them less people will be killed. They don't look at self defense aspects of gun ownership. They just have it drilled into their heads that it is so simple - get rid of guns and you get rid of killing. Our arguement is - fine if YOU don't want to defend yourself with guns then don't, just don't take away OUR right to chose to defend ourselves with guns.

I believe you are ABSOLUTELY right P-GunMan.  Those people that think that way are morons.  They do not realize that if the guns are all taken away from law abiding citizens, like those on this site, then only the criminals will posess the guns.  If they choose not to defend themselves against these people, then so be it. I choose to defend my family and myself with any means possible.  I've spent time around people that have that attitude and it actually scared me.  I could not make any sense out of the way they thought.  Take away guns and less people will be killed?  Not hardly.  Those people are way out of touch with reality.  Just my .02 worth.  

Gobblin -

Your question is answered in two parts, as follows:

1. re: an absolute right of self-defense from the criminal element-

The antis answer "No."

In their twisted little world, the criminal (Andrea Yates comes to mind) is themselves a victim. Their actions are not their own fault, but societies fault. They were driven to them by poverty, abuse, having to wear hand me down clothes, insufficient "attaboys" by a parent, whatever.

Since their actions are not their fault, you have no right to kill them in order to stop them. In their intellectual arogance, antis never lower themselves to tell you EXACTLY what you are supposed to do when you confront a madman with a baseball bat, knife, or a gun. Should a gun actually be the weapon of choice for a murderer, the gun is actually to blame. Why knives and baseball bats are not similarly demonized  - well, they never bother to address that either.

So, in a sense, criminal violence, in the mind of an anti, has a singular usefulness - as an anvil to beat gun owners into plowshare operators.

2. re: the absolute right of self-defense against an abusive gov't

The antis answer "No."

The state is absolute, the highest authority. The peasant needs to subjugate themselves to the state. Oddly, since they are the intellectuals, THEY will comprose the state, and forner gun owners always seem to make up the group called "peasants."

This idea of the sovereigny of the state traces back AT LEAST to the time of Plato (see "That Every Man Be Armed" by Stephen Halbrook)

But, still, I can't bring myself to say "It isn't about guns" with the antis.

Some of them genuinely fear inanimate guns, and they don't want to live in a world where they have to fear.

More yet understand that their utopian scoiety where THEY comprise the state (for our own good, or course) will NEVER come about until the guns are taken from the citizens, so the citizens can be transformed back into peasants (for our own good, of course)

So ya see, in a way, it IS about the guns. Guns are the roadblock to Utopia. And the guns (and the knives, lances, halburtons, maces , ANY weapon of self-defense)  MUST go. They wish to subjugate us FOR OUR OWN GOOD, and as long as we have guns, we will not let them do this for us.

One more thing....

Silly Wobblin' -

There you go using logic.

Remember, antis don;t use logic. They don't think - they "feel."

They feel like guns are dangerous, they feel like guns can ONLY be used for crime, they feel like if guns were gone, there would be less killing. And they are SURE their "feelings" are right.

So for them, their opinion about guns IS the cause of their answer re: self-defense. The fact that this approach is counter-logical doesn't seem to phase them.

This is one of the best pieces that I've seen explaining the mind of an Anti (if that isn't an oxymorn, I don't know what is)[BD]

[url]http://www.jpfo.org/ragingagainstselfdefense.htm[/url]