because you "said so" isnt a reason jimbob..
can I get a yeehaww!!!!
Of course it is. It may not be a reason you like, but it is a reason, nonetheless. I could even elaborate that reason: why do i say so? Because i Want to. As a human being, i have the right to do whatever i want, whatever makes me feel however i want to feel, as long as i don't do something that impinges the life or property of another.
If i "just want to" own firearms, there is no legitimate reason why i should not be allowed, unless i have demonstrated the intent to initiate aggression towards others.
Contrarily, you could make the argument that "TPTB" or whatever gov't entity asserting authority to control its citizens, is afraid that i will use weapons to cause harm to others, or, more importantly, that i will reject their assertion of authority to dictate my choices, and resist any and all attempts by them, to impose control through aggression and use of deadly force.
In other words: the gov'ts want us not to have guns, because they're afraid we will refuse to be controlled. They assert themselves as "above regular people," and they want us to submit to that assertion, and comply with their commands.
Lots of people find that unacceptable, and this is often due to what i've only recently become aware actually has a name, which is "the non-aggression principle." As long as no one instigates aggression toward me, why would i need to harm anyone? Especially since i already know that "violence begets violence," and that instigating undue harm almost always results in exacerbated consequences. If i don't want to provoke someone into harming me, i should avoid harming them first. But if, while adhering to the non-aggression principle, someone instigates, provokes, and imposes undue aggression upon me... then i have every right to retaliate with whatever amount of force is required to prevent them from harming me, or anyone else, unduly, any further.
They try to legislate away our right to defend ourselves from injustice, by arbitrarily "criminalizing" resistance... but they refuse to earn their privilege to do so, by adhering to the non-aggression principle. Instead, they invent laws that they claim allows them to violate the non-aggression principle, for any reason they deem valid, including non-violent, non-destructive, non-harmful, non-dangerous things, like partnering with natural plants, such as cannabis. But this is inherently invalid, because growing and consuming cannabis does not violate any part of the non-aggression principle, and does not legitimately cause detriment to anyone at all.
And apart from the government, the other problem with this country is everything is a fucking ripoff. Property, vehicles, food, weed, electronics.
