4,994
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 130:
Line 130: + + + + + + + + +
Debate:Is gun-control the answer to crimes involving guns? (view source)
Revision as of 19:16, April 23, 2007
, 19:16, April 23, 2007What about Baghdad?
[[User:Middle Man|Middle Man]]
[[User:Middle Man|Middle Man]]
== Present-day Baghdad? ==
The argument is sometimes made that an armed citizenry is protection against criminals, a bulwark against possible government tyranny, and even protection against armed invasion. I once thought that argument had ''some'' merit to it. For example, [http://www.nra.org/Speech.aspx?id=6042 Charlton Heston writes] "The Founding Fathers guaranteed this freedom because they knew no tyranny can ever arise among a people endowed with the right to keep and bear arms. That's why you and your descendants need never fear fascism, state-run faith, refugee camps, brainwashing, ethnic cleansing, or especially, submission to the wanton will of criminals].
By all accounts[http://www.nytimes.com/2006/04/03/world/middleeast/03guns.html?ex=1301716800&en=5d15095b872b5e6b&ei=5090&partner=rssuserland&emc=rss] it is extremely common for Baghdad households to own a gun, with the Kalashnikov AK-47's being very popular.
The argument against gun control seems to assume implicitly that the citizenry is all of one mind and all fighting ''on the same side.'' The Second Amendment speaks of "a well-regulated militia" but doesn't seem to address the possibility of multiple, ''poorly''-regulated militias, ''plural.''
Isn't Baghdad a fair example of one of the ways gun ownership can go wrong? [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 15:16, 23 April 2007 (EDT)