The Government (in several countries) are rather forcefully trying to limit and eradicate private gun ownership. Canada, Britain and Australia have certainly gotten away with that.

In Canada, for instance, you can apply for a weapon permit for "target practice" ... but if you put 'self defense' on that application you will be denied ... and if you use that weapon against and aggressor you will be charged with a crime. huh?

The central reason given generally for gun control is that it is to "reduce crime". Since when do criminals observe, respect or abide by "laws"?

So the general population goes along with the "law" ... criminals don't and, therefore the general population faces two threats ... government and criminals ... both of which are armed and have their own agendas.

Meanwhile ... we are also treated (almost daily) to a cacophony of shrill alarms from governments and their news media "friends" about the risks of terrorists assaulting us at any moment!

Seems to me that 'real leaders' would be encouraging people to arm up and prepare to defend. Instead it seems the message is to disarm and stand down. Doesn't make sense ... does it? Whose side are the politicians on?

All living creatures on this planet have the right to defend themselves. Some have claws, some have hooves, some have fangs etc.

Therefore, without those, humans are a vulnerable mammal ... so over many thousands of years humans have developed various weapons ... some to hunt with, to sustain food supplies ... and some to defend against predators ... and "aggressors".

Unlike other mammals, humans evolved into tribes and eventually complex societies. We 'decided' to elect members of our tribes/communities to manage certain of our affairs ... commerce and defense chief among those.

'Electing' those people was based on 'trusting' them to do what is best in the interest of the community ... tribal, local, state (province) or nationally.

With that 'trust' comes responsibility.

With responsibility comes 'obligations'.

Therefore, if our elected employees demand we surrender any and or all means of self defense; they are obliged to provide our guaranteed safety from any or all threats to personal safety 24/7.

Can they do so? The obvious answer is "no" ... they have no capacity to do so effectively. And, therefore, they have NO lawful basis to demand the we be defenseless against proven and heavily advertised threats to our safety!

"Dial 911" ... and get a response time of several minutes (at least.) AFTER the Q & A with the 911 operator ... great idea, bad solution ... the 'authorities' will show up in time to write a great report and take detailed pictures ... but you are still the victim and if you're lucky to still be breathing!

Scenario: You're being accosted by criminals ... you can't fight them because your elected employees have legislated you out of having a gun or even wearing body armor ... so you dial 911 and while waiting for the connection, you announce to your attackers that you're quite prepared to buy them a coffee while you wait for the police to arrive and even the odds so that things are "fair."

That would work well ... right?? ... NOT!!

Governments and their employees owe their very existence to us ... and if they cannot do the job properly ... then we have every right to do so for ourselves ... particularly where the safety and defense of ourselves and families are concerned.

NOBODY can 'lawfully' legislate any one of us into victimhood!