Genie out of the bottle, not to mention it sets bad precedence on revoking granted rights. 200+ years of historical momentum.
The constitution has been amended both to remove a right and then to reverse that. So the precedent is already set both ways.
Once a right is granted, its hard to revoke it. Especially if you are talking about Americans. We take it seriously.
What you are suggesting is a bit too utopian a view to be realistic. We have them, we believe we have reasons to carry them on occasion. They are not going away in the United States.
Again, not much of an argument. You're basically saying we always have done it so why should we stop.
The people should have the right to defend their homes from attack, foreign or domestic, to be able to take up arms in defense of their country, a right that the british attempted to take away in the 1700's For better or worse, its one of hte things that started that little tiff we had a couple hundred years ago.
Is it viable now? I dunno.
It's not. As I explained to Warlock, believing you can protect yourself against the government with the kind of weapons you legally have access to is Red Dawn style fantasy. How long do you really think Waco would have lasted against a tyrannical government? They'd have just brought the artillery in and ended it within a few hours.
The same goes for foreign invasions. If the enemy have somehow gotten past the US armed forces it's hard to believe that someone is going to hold them off with a handgun.
I do know I have reasons to be armed on occasion. Safeguarding things greedy people want. Those greedy people could be foreign or domestic. The likelihood of it happening is low enough not to require a police escort, the the consequences of it happening are high enough to take some precautions. That's pure risk assessment and mitigation. In the unlikely even that something were to happen, that something is likely to be lethal. So, in those circumstances I carry a weapon.
Perhaps but in doing so you're getting yourself into an arms race with the criminals. A race you can only lose precisely because they are criminals and thus are likely to go further than you. How will carrying a gun help you against two or three greedy people? How will it help you if they carry bigger guns?
It was standard practice to take a weapon, often a rifle, when out on the farm. Groundhogs dig up huge holes that wreck tractors posing a life threatening circumstance, they also could create a situation where the cattle could break a leg, threatening the viability of the herd. We were to identify the holes to fill in, and shoot the poor little critters to thin their population. We also had the traditional "fox in the hen-house" problems. You protect your land.
Rifles are still legal in the UK for much the same reason. The sale of such weapons is much more heavily licensed than in the US but you can still get a rifle if you need one for that reason.
Additionally, I spent time doing field work out west. It is highly dangerous to spend any time in the back country of the American west. Between the people who might think you a claim jumper, and the various wild animals that might decide you are a tasty snack, you go armed. Period. You'll find that to be the case of many nationalities in many wildernesses. People who did field work in Alaska were issued .45's to help them convince grizzly bears that they were not worth snacking on (note, the cartridge was big enough to hurt the bear and make it go away, but not big enough to kill it). Bears, boars, wolves, coyotes, rattlesnakes. Some would hunt you, some would attack if startled. All of them were dangerous, and being armed helped make sure you at least survived the encounter. I carried a pistol in those days for those reasons.
Lacking natural predators in this country that's not a problem here. You might need a gun in the countryside but why would they need them in New York or Dallas?
