Dont you think they have a point?

The thing about the value of moral purity is that it's hard to really articulate WHY it should be followed. It's just the way things have always been. Sometimes the reasons for things are multi-faceted and hard to explain-- or even for the smartest of us to understand. They are at an extreme disadvantage in argumentation for that reason. In a real discussion, you have to bring as much information as possible to bear to prove your case-- but in the case of tradition, we may not even know everything about why we choose to do certain things. We only know that it's the way we've always done it. It's tradition.

MUCH smarter people than me have laid out this case for the right to firearms ownership, so just repeat them:

Most human interactions, especially between people not genetically related, are backed by the threat of force. You obey laws because the police have guns. If you disobey them, the police will come and arrest you.

How then, is the government not a tyranny? Because rule is made by social contract. Democracy is all well and good, but that's just a thick layer of pageantry overlaying a far more fundamental truth-- the power you exercise over government exists because of the reciprocal threat of force you exert over your government. We agree to use our guns responsibly (and preferably to NOT use them) and the government agrees to use ITS guns only for purposes we've agreed to let them.

Before someone says "but you can't shoot down a jet with a hunting rifle!" that's not the point. The point is to make a situation where they would have to use that kind of force against you so costly that they'd rather just not do it. To make it more concrete: The point of gun ownership is to make the government unable to start carting people off to gulags unless they want to start putting their own agents in constant mortal danger-- the kind of mortal danger that makes a frontline NKVD man think "maybe we should start arresting our commissars instead?"

I can only imagine the debates that must have taken place in our ancestral past...

Chief Mog: Now, talk about clubs. First, Og talk.

Og: Gentlemen of the tribe - I submit that, despite their decided usefulness during the hunt, we must rationally conclude that clubs are so dangerous that their possession must be carefully controlled by the tribe lest they fall into the wrong hands and be used to commit mayhem and murder. I am not calling for an outright ban - perish the thought! I believe that a sensible course of action is to have all the clubs gathered together and placed under the watchful control of a group of trusted members of the tribe who will, when needed, dispense them to those individuals who have need of them, for example, when hunting or when defending the cave from the depradations of other tribes. Thank you for your kind attention.

Chief Mog: Og use big words. Og stupid. Now Grog talk.

Grog: OG LIE!!!! KILL!!!!!!!! (beats Og to death with club)

Chief Mog: Grog win! Grog have biggest club! Female like hunter with big club!

Grog: Hur-hur-hur-hur..!

And so it goes...

No one can make an hbomb alone though. I mean entire countries lack the ability to do it.

>there's never a good reason to allow one person the ability to kill another.

But that's wrong. lol

It's really that simple, mate. Some people need to be killed - not deserve to be, but need to be, must be killed.

funny how they had to increase the size of the threat in order to even try and make a point

Now, letting individuals own hydrogen bombs is obviously stupid. You can't use them with discrimination, and even in the best situations, you're probably doing way more damage than you need to. And using them makes the place you use them uninhabitable for what... a few hundred years? There is no responsible way to use them.

But even with all those and many more problems, they'd still accomplish one important thing: they'd make anyone think really hard before they try to plow you under.

People SHOULD have the ability to wield deadly force. We don't know how much, but it's definitely somewhere between "pen knife" and "h-bomb". We need to completely understand what we're doing before we just react emotionally.

I didn't say I agree with it. Read for comprehension. I was laying out their logic.

Do people just not read or something?

H Bomb is an indiscriminate weapon these people are idiots.

Don't know what their point is - thermonuclear weapons are being created by privately owned companies, not the government.

>comparing a gun to a bomb

The left has no argument against guns besides crying like little bitches.

>Some people need to be killed - not deserve to be, but need to be, must be killed.
In the case where someone immediately threatens your live or someone else's, I agree completely. It's a case where there's no alternative.

I even think there are cases where there are alternatives, but it's still probably not a bad thing if someone does get killed.

I mean, when a home owner kills an unarmed burglar, it's a (minor) tragedy. But nobody should be punished for it. You just can't ask someone to tolerate that kind of violation. You're asking them to give up some important piece of their dignity. You're asking them to give up respect.

"Respect" and "dignity" are abstract concepts highly associated with purity. But they aren't just words-- the sense for them is innate, and we cling to them because we know that if we give them up we're giving up something important to our survival.