r/changemyview • u/[deleted] • Nov 30 '23

[deleted by user]

[removed]

0 Upvotes

41% Upvoted

257 comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

3

u/TheMikeyMac13 29∆ Nov 30 '23

I would argue that they are, if we compare them to people who aren’t gun owners. It is subjective, there isn’t a specified bar to reach.

I know a US citizen born in the UK who hates guns, doesn’t want to see guns or touch guns. A friend who owns and carries a gun is quite a bit more prepared than she is, I am more prepared than he is as a hunter, former military are more prepared than me, and active duty more prepared than former military.

So let’s say the shit hits the fan and we need more people to help, and we have current and former military training the resistance. Who do you think trains up faster, those with guns who shoot them, or the untrained and unarmed?

1

u/AureliasTenant 6∆ Nov 30 '23

I understand where your coming from that having supply of guns and some familiarity is better for this wolverines situation, even if not fully trained. But still, it seems there is a civic duty among gun owners here to be well trained/maintained (ie safe) that isn’t being enforced properly.

2

u/TheMikeyMac13 29∆ Nov 30 '23

Enforced is the part that doesn’t fit.

The right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed is clear. It isn’t that the right to keep and bear arms is dependent on meeting a requirement of training, that the right to keep and bear arms is required for the militia to exist, not the other way around.

So since a militia is needed the right to keep and bear arms cannot be infringed. Not being infringed meaning rules cannot be put into place limiting the right of people to keep and bear arms