All over the world we are witnessing untold violence being created, mostly violence against unarmed humans by those who are armed. States since colonialism have demanded that people are disarmed and that only the state is armed, this started by the laws that natives are not to be armed, armed people can defend their rights. This practice of keeping the people disarmed continued after independence as these movements in reality were fighting for power not for freedom, they were in reality fighting to give themselves the juicy parts of what was created by the colonizers.
Note before colonialism the citizens were all expected to be armed with the best weapons available at the time, be that weapon a spear, a sword, people were expected to be armed to defend themselves, they did not abdicate their defense to the state, the people were part and parcel of the state, they were armed with the exact same weapons the state was armed with. This was their right, the state could not abuse them, only a disarmed citizenry can be abused. This brings about the importance of the US second amendment “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed” see US Bill of Rights.
This right being guaranteed by the government means that the government will find it very difficult to abuse peoples without some sort of resistance. Those who want to repeal this second amendment want to destroy the
Do you think Saddam would have abused his people if they had the right to bear arms, would Pol Pot have butchered millions if the people had the right to bear arms, would the cowardly Mugabe be ranting like a fool if the people had the right to bear arms, incidentally Mugabe could only kill civilians after he ranted about one Zimbabwe and Zipra should disarm, considering he sneaked up twice on them when they were armed and lost should have been a warning, Would people be forced to follow religions they could hardly care about if they had the right to bear arms, would there be a civil war in Colombia if the people had the right to bear arms, would there be disorder in the Middle East if the people had the right to bear arms, would Amin have been the buffoon he was if the people had the right to bear arms, would the regime in Myanmar let its people starve if those people had the right to bear arms, obviously they are not representing the people, that is why governments need people to be disarmed because they know they are not representing the people.
The right to bear arms should be a right the whole world over, evil would tread more carefully if people could defend themselves, because evil is usually a coward and needs to attack the powerless. This right to bear arms should be with the citizenry, have access to the same arms the state has, and it should be a right of every country, can not destroy those who are equally armed, again because evil is usually a coward and needs to prevent others from being armed in order to get its way.
These leaders of
When economies slow they is usually unhappy folks, when the people are disarmed draconian measures are taken and the people can not stop it. Once people are disarmed an elite can take over and effectively decide who will participate in what role. But if a free market were one can defend themselves it is more difficult to take peoples rights away from them.
Only in security and respect can one forge ahead with knowledge.