We also don’t care what other countries think. And think the metric system and soccer are stupid
There are no stupid questions. Just stupid people: Why does the U.S. think gun ownership is an inalienable right given that literally all of the developed world doesn’t feel the same way?
September 5th, 2017 at 5:18 pm
His answer is pretty good. As I’ve pointed out in the past: self defense is a natural right (not just a human right) — even mushrooms understand self defense.
September 5th, 2017 at 6:44 pm
The “developed world” has leaders ALL OF WHOM are defended by guns. If they don’t “feel the same way” as those of us “who consider gun ownership as an inalienable right”, then why don’t they disarm themselves and LEAD BY EXAMPLE?
September 5th, 2017 at 9:23 pm
Because ‘feelings’ are what children base decisions upon. Men make decisions based on facts. In other words; children do what feels good, men make hard decisions to ensure their people’s future.
September 5th, 2017 at 9:24 pm
Oh and, BFYTW!!!
September 5th, 2017 at 11:59 pm
Why did the US think a country where the people were sovereign and government restricted by a constitution was a good idea when literally all the developed world didn’t feel the same way?
September 6th, 2017 at 12:14 am
“…literally all of the developed world doesn’t feel the same way.”
The lords and masters of the developed world may not feel that way. But I wonder what the yay/nay vote from the citizens of that world might be?
September 6th, 2017 at 8:26 am
Because we’re right and they’re wrong
September 6th, 2017 at 8:42 am
I think you could say the same thing about the First, Fourth, and Fifth Amendments too. Would they throw those out because no other countries in the developed world have those protections either?
September 6th, 2017 at 10:03 am
@Ravenwood, that’s an excellent rhetorical question. But yes, the rulers of the “developed world” would throw out those as well, as they have done, for example, with the “no fly list” and “no fly- no buy” (guns) list. The “developed world” has developed a more sophisticated way of slavery and tyranny.
“The possession of arms is the distinction between a freeman and a slave. He, who has nothing, and who himself belongs to another, must be defended by him, whose property he is, and needs no arms. But he, who thinks he is his own master, and has what he can call his own, ought to have arms to defend himself, and what he possesses; else he lives precariously, and at discretion.” –James Burgh, 1714-1775, English statesman (before England devolved into disarmed barbarism–like most of the “developed world”)
September 6th, 2017 at 10:52 am
” There are no stupid questions. ” There are though a lot of inquisitive idiots though .