Archived AfD leader backs German citizens' right to arm themselves (reuters.com)
submitted ago by YoungerX
Posted by: YoungerX
Posting time: 4.3 years ago on
Last edit time: never edited.
Archived on: 2/12/2017 1:51:00 AM
Views: 821
SCP: 102
102 upvotes, 0 downvotes (100% upvoted it)
Archived AfD leader backs German citizens' right to arm themselves (reuters.com)
submitted ago by YoungerX
view the rest of the comments →
[–] 23049842 0 points 1 point 1 point (+1|-0) ago
The necessity of this discussion is also the fault of the right wing.
Often, leftist people claim that more weapons will lead to more gun-related deaths and the right wing opposes to that.
BUT the left wing is actually right with their statement, it's actually true.
So then why should we have armed citizens?
Not to reduce terrorist attacks or anything, but instead to be able to overthrow the government at any time, if it is neccessary.
That's what the left doesn't see, that armed citizens are important in the bigger picture, but not when you look at a few single lives.
You can't overthrow a dictatorial government with pillows.
Armed citizens are the last line of defense of democracy.
There's even a law in Germany that contains the right to resistance. Of course, there is nothing about arms written in this law, but how would you oppose someone that has an army without arms?
[–] [deleted] 0 points 1 point 1 point (+1|-0) ago
[–] 23049842 ago
I don't have any citation right now, so I take that back and say instead: "more weapons might lead to more gun-related deaths"
The reason why I believe that they will lead to more gun related deaths is the following: If everyone was armed, people still quarrel or fight from time to time (even if the prevalence of guns made them more polite) and some of the fights would lead to a gun fight if everyone had guns. These same situations wouldn't lead to gun fights if gun-carry was not allowed.
Now of course that is only true in the current situation.
If things are bad, gang wars occur and stuff like that, it's better to have a gun at home to at least have a chance to hold back attackers until the police arrives. In such a situation, owning a gun may actually reduce the number of gun-related deaths.
But anyway, I'm just guessing and I might be wrong. But tell me, what are the reasons you believe that gun-carry would not lead to more gun-related deaths?
[–] LiberatedDeathStar 0 points 1 point 1 point (+1|-0) ago (edited ago)
What they don't see is that the intention is not to overthrow your government, not to defend yourself, not to hunt, but to do some weird combination of all of those.
The real idea is that you, as an individual, are responsible for yourself. You are responsible to defend your country and family from your government, from invaders, and from criminals wanting to do you harm. These are all basic concepts, and even still exist in the world they wish to craft. Even without guns, these are your responsibilities, you just have a harder time doing it. No amount of government can protect you and your family, even when they themselves think they're safe.
All the right to arms does is give you tools to fulfill your basic obligations, these obligations are still yours regardless of weaponry. A man always has these responsibilities, and they cannot be taken away. We should give men the freedom to defend their family and themselves from tyranny, both foreign and domestic.
Anyways, I'm thankful to my ancestors that I can exercise this right, and bear arms I am and shall continue to do.
[–] HeavyBrain 0 points 1 point 1 point (+1|-0) ago
Oh they see, but they are retarded and waht they don't see is that "they" aka the footsoilders doing all the screaming and dirty work won't be on top of the food chain, thats waht they calculatiing on, because you know mom told them they are so fucking speciall that they can be anything.