Greg the Grouper
Active Member
Personally, I'm in support of firearm ownership. This may only apply to the US, but like any good American, I look at a world map and everywhere else in my mind just says "Here There Be Dragons".
I believe that your average person of economic means similar to my own (as an example, someone who can purchase a house along with anyone that has less economic means), in our current system, can only manifest their own agency, their own capacity to change their society, through physical means (ranging anywhere from voting, to protesting, to violence). Being a firearm, I'd think this pertains more to violence, but simply put, I'd view an attempt by higher authority to remove firearms as a means by which said authority reduces the agency of the common man in society, which I am wholeheartedly against.
While I understand that this inevitably leads to conflict, as well as the loss of innocent life, I feel that reducing our agency in society is a far worse outcome. For similar reasons, I'd think of any action impeding a person's right to vote, such as redlining, shutting down voting booths, identification cards for voting, and removing a felon's right to vote, are all borderline treasonous actions.
I'd have no problem with a population willingly disarming themselves, though, and I would hope that someone could find themselves living in a society where firearms are completely unnecessary.
EDIT: For greater clarification, I would differentiate between 'physical means' and 'economic means', essentially individual action and individual purchasing power.
I believe that your average person of economic means similar to my own (as an example, someone who can purchase a house along with anyone that has less economic means), in our current system, can only manifest their own agency, their own capacity to change their society, through physical means (ranging anywhere from voting, to protesting, to violence). Being a firearm, I'd think this pertains more to violence, but simply put, I'd view an attempt by higher authority to remove firearms as a means by which said authority reduces the agency of the common man in society, which I am wholeheartedly against.
While I understand that this inevitably leads to conflict, as well as the loss of innocent life, I feel that reducing our agency in society is a far worse outcome. For similar reasons, I'd think of any action impeding a person's right to vote, such as redlining, shutting down voting booths, identification cards for voting, and removing a felon's right to vote, are all borderline treasonous actions.
I'd have no problem with a population willingly disarming themselves, though, and I would hope that someone could find themselves living in a society where firearms are completely unnecessary.
EDIT: For greater clarification, I would differentiate between 'physical means' and 'economic means', essentially individual action and individual purchasing power.
Last edited:
