2007-03-31 07:09:06 · 6 answers · asked by Lancaid 3 in Politics & Government ➔ Law & Ethics
You'd have to ask the children in Waco, TX that question.
2007-03-31 07:13:06 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 2⤋
Yes they should. Who are the law abiding citizens you refer to? The ones that live their entire lives as one or the ones we believe are and turn out to be murders and theives. Unfortunately we don't know exaclty who died as a law abiding citizen even after death since only a percentage of murders and other criminals are caught.
2007-03-31 15:50:56 · answer #2 · answered by Dr. Luv 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
It's a balance system. Neither should be the only one to have firearms. By the people having arms it ensures the government can not become tyrannous, and by the government having arms it ensures that the people can not fall into anarchy. Having firearms is in the best interests of both.
2007-03-31 07:21:54 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋
The government doesn't carry guns. Government law enforcement offices and military personnel carry guns.
And each of them goes through a several-week training course in proper handling of firearms, and must pass a qualification and safety course. Personally, I'd like to see the same requirements for any civilian who carries a firearm.
Guns are about as dangerous as cars. Cars require significant training and licensure before being allowed out in public. Guns should be subject to comparable requirements.
2007-03-31 07:16:14 · answer #4 · answered by coragryph 7 · 2⤊ 4⤋
Government has no inherent rights. It merely monopolizes force for its own benefit. Should government agents carry guns? Hell, there shouldn't even be a government.
2007-03-31 07:22:05 · answer #5 · answered by Zombie 7 · 1⤊ 1⤋
Duh.
2007-03-31 07:11:55 · answer #6 · answered by Chris S 2 · 0⤊ 1⤋