You are a representative of a website that sells ammunition for guns though, so this is to be expected.
I'm not American, and to an outsider the obsession with guns just looks bizarre. I appreciate that a lot of it is tied up in history, and claiming the continent, with dangerous wildlife (bears, etc.) and conflict with the native population... but how does any of this apply to the modern world? I can't see that "we should be free to own guns because we want to" is a particularly compelling reason. And I understand the second amendment, but again this is an anachronism, it's something that may have been valid in the US a couple of hundred years ago. Why would someone see this as important now, other than because "we want to have guns".... what other reason is there to have them? Why would someone who lives in, say, Manhattan need a gun? Other than to defend themselves against other people who have guns, which isn't really much of an argument.
Not trying to be confrontational, just genuinely interested in the issue as someone who is looking at it from the outside.
I'm certainly what you claim. It's no coincidence whom I work for, however. I sought out Ammo.com because it aligns with my personal beliefs.
I appreciate your civility. As a pro-gun American I can only give you my own opinion on the matter.
The Second Amendment is a safeguard against government tryanny. It does not provide complete protection against government tyranny, as the American government continually demonstrates. But if the government were to start sending secret police to people's doors in the dead of night, they'd have a very hard time gathering enough volunteers because those people would know the barrel of a loaded firearm could be pointed at them through any closed door. If the government starts putting people in internment camps – like they did in WWII, on both sides – they'll have a much more difficult time doing so when those people are armed with semi-automatic rifles. I could go on, but the basic gist of it is that an armed populace is far harder to dominate than one which cannot fight back against its own military and police. Pretending that a government cannot turn tyrannical over the course of a few years is willful ignorance at best.
On the other hand, there is self-defense. I have a right to defend myself against anyone who means to do me immediate bodily harm. I am not some kind of action hero – in a fight against a man holding a knife, or two unarmed men, I'm nearly certainly done for. That's why I carry a revolver. And if someone breaks into my house in the dead of night, my chances of survival are much higher if I grab my shotgun as opposed to calling the police, who will take over 10 minutes to arrive at my home. If everyone in Manhattan carried a firearm for self-defense, instead of only criminals, I believe violence would decline. Criminals are far less likely to choose victims that are able to fight back.
There you have it!, foreign friend!
