If I'm going to start blogging again, let's do it with both guns blazing.
Consider the argument for Obamacare. If you do not have healthcare, you are costing the community (however it is defined), more money by your failure to pay for your own medicinal care. When you show up at the emergency room, you cost the state money if you can't pay.
Therefore it is fair to charge you a penalty, a tax if you want to call it that, for not providing this essential service to yourself and being a drain on the community.
But what about people who do not provide for their own security? That have to call the police who will then launch expensive investigations? People who do not own a gun and are not prepared to defend themselves and their property?
It's the same argument. They're costing the state money.
So perhaps a compromise can be reached ... we'll accept the premise of Obamacare (though not as the law is written ... it needs work) which is that citizens who fail to provide a service for themselves cost the state ... if the state will then accept the premise that every citizen should be armed.
If you are capable of bearing arms, you should. You have an obligation to do so.
