Comment: You're being overly defensive

(See in situ)

In reply to comment: Come on now, (see in situ)

You're being overly defensive

I didn't belittle you or anyone else taking part in this discussion. I've been reading the comments and have posted a few of my own, because I think the discussion is interesting. The thing is, "good" and "bad" in people is hard to measure and as the comments here prove, everyone will never agree on one or another conclusion.

Even if a conclusion could be reached as regards gun ownership, it's true that the govt. is made up of people. If people really are basically bad, it doesn't strengthen an argument for banning gun rights because govt. will never give up its guns and it makes no sense to allow some "basically bad" people to have guns and not all the others. That would just give one group of basically bad people an advantage over the others. The reverse argument would be something like: if all people are basically good, no one, including govt. would need guns; or, all people can be trusted with guns since they're all basically good.

Of course, if some people are good and others are bad, or there's good and bad in everyone -- that means some people in govt. are good and some are bad or they are all part good and part they should never have an advantage over everyone else.

Therefore, whether people are basically good or bad or somewhere in between can never be a good logical argument for disarming the civilian population.

Because all this seems so very obvious, the rest just looks like intellectual masturbation.