How is the point still incorrect?
I refer you to my earlier point:
Quote:
Okay. Serious question:
I understand the logic of armed citizenry. I even agree, to a certain extent with the wisdom of that concept. After all, a citizenry who aren't armed are potentially at the mercy of powerful armed governments. What I don't understand is the desire to walk around armed. Is life so dangerous that people feel the need to carry weaponry wherever they go? Who/what does the gun protect them from? How likely is it that someone will need to use their gun?
|
I have already agreed that, in principle, the idea of an armed citizenry is a potentially good thing, because otherwise it is at risk from a powerful and armed government.....in what way have I disagreed with you?
The point I made was in response to someone, as I have already said, who suggested that somehow being British meant one didn't have a cultural understanding of militia.