Just Tell Me How

Anti-gun fools criticize people like me who actually see the senselessness of the laws they pass, and the impossibility of them actually DOING anything to reduce “gun crime.” They say we WANT more people to be murdered (not in those words, but that's the effect of what they say), and that’s supposed to be why we insist on retaining the constitutional RIGHT to be armed for self defense. So I want to ask them a simple question, and insist on a real answer, and not the usual name-calling in which they engage, to mask the fact that they HAVE no answer. The question is this: “Why do you insist on continuing to make laws that, in addition to NOT working to reduce “gun crime,” actually work to INCREASE it by disarming the law-abiding so they’ll be ‘easy targets’ for the law breakers?” Another question is: “What makes you think a CRIMINAL, who breaks laws for a living, will magically OBEY a law that says he cannot be armed when he commits his other crimes?” Criminals break laws. It’s in the name. So why not allow the law-abiding to be able to have guns for self defense? We kept our nuclear capability to keep international criminals such as communist Russia from victimizing us, so why can’t the law-abiding be armed, for the same reason? In Philadelphia, a city with one of the highest “gun death” rates outside of Chicago, 91% of “gun crime” is committed by people who are legally not allowed to have a gun. And those illegal guns number in the millions. So why can’t we be allowed to defend ourselves with a LEGAL gun? (The Enquirer)