I’m curious about something. Why is it that, after a number of what could be considered ‘terrorist attacks’ by the mentally ill, there was great outcry in favor of the restriction of the right to bear arms?
Why is it that there is no reported outcry for there to be a legal requirement for all citizens to carry and train with a firearm, especially after the recent attacks in France?
It would seem to me that an appropriately armed and skilled citizenry would be of great help to the government in maintaining public safety. Not only that, but the police would have an understandable excuse to field military grade equipment, in order to ‘outgun’ the average criminal. Heck, it would save money, give reason to grow American manufacturing, and thus be a boon to the economy and middle class.
I mean, people say the second amendment is outdated, but perhaps they’re thinking in the wrong direction. It should not be a right, but a requirement. Isn’t that the situation we have with health insurance?
What am I missing here? Am I correct?
For the record, this is the law in Switzerland. I haven’t heard about any terrorist attacks there. Maybe they’re on to something.