Quote:
Originally Posted by Pete F.
The same reason individual’s never stop groups of vigilantes
Don't know to which question you're responding to. It's obvious to me that Rittenhouse was carrying his weapon (the only gun he owned or had access to) for self protection. If the only or real reason he was attacked is that he was openly carrying, that doesn't square with the dozens of others openly carrying not being attacked.
Of course carried to its logical end, your theory of everyone being armed is good, will get us to where?
It's not my theory. I don't own a gun. But the theory has merits. The theory that it would lead to the "wild West" doesn't consistently hold historical water. It might be more plausible that settlement into the West was made more possible by most being armed. The long arm of government law took a while to be efficiently and functionally established. And when it was, it was often corrupted and needed defense against it.
It also seems apparent to me, that when the government law allows dangerous things like riots to go fairly unimpeded, the citizens have to protect themselves or have their lives destroyed.
The third world country you dream of America becoming?
WTF? I've never had such a dream. Where do you get this bull$hit? Are you eating some funny mushrooms?
As for guns in the third world--none is as heavily armed as America. And many in that world wish that they had guns and lots of ammo because they are at the mercy of both the legal and illegal predators.
Tribes fighting in the streets, if you want that take a trip to Africa
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
|
Yeah, Africa is a good example. Ask the unarmed Christians in North Africa.