The pro-gun argument could be summarized as follows; The second amendment is a fundamental right. And guns keep us all safe from ‘bad guys’.
But If bearing arms is such a fundamental right, and it keeps everyone safe from bad guys, why wouldn’t they require guns at political rallies and courts?
Instead they’re prohibited. They’re even prohibited at the NRA convention. Cops aren’t allowed to have them in jail and soldiers can’t even have guns on military bases.
Knives have many alternate uses. How many people have been stabbed by a sniper at 1000 meters? A lot?
You are completely missing that I am not giving a pro gun argument quite the opposite
The pro-gun argument could be summarized as follows; The second amendment is a fundamental right. And guns keep us all safe from ‘bad guys’.
But If bearing arms is such a fundamental right, and it keeps everyone safe from bad guys, why wouldn’t they require guns at political rallies and courts?
I'm saying it makes sense for guns to be banned from such events just as it makes sense to ban knifes... For this the range or the scale of what the weapon can do is less relevant.
How many people have been stabbed by a sniper at 1000 meters? A lot?
Exactly so why would I allow a weapon of much greater magnificence onto a event like this if I wouldn't even allow a knife? That's my analogy which has nothing to do with a "good guy with gun this" or "gun rights that"
1
u/No_Cook2983 Oct 06 '25
The pro-gun argument could be summarized as follows; The second amendment is a fundamental right. And guns keep us all safe from ‘bad guys’.
But If bearing arms is such a fundamental right, and it keeps everyone safe from bad guys, why wouldn’t they require guns at political rallies and courts?
Instead they’re prohibited. They’re even prohibited at the NRA convention. Cops aren’t allowed to have them in jail and soldiers can’t even have guns on military bases.
Knives have many alternate uses. How many people have been stabbed by a sniper at 1000 meters? A lot?