In order to have ANY honest, rational discussion begins with 'Honest". When you are open to the reasoning and opinion of your opponent and open to their justification of their stance then it will be "honest". When you enter a discussion without willing to look at both sides of an issue then you are not honest and intent on deception.<quoted text>
I'm gonna stop you right there.
If you honestly believe that, then honest, rational discussion of this issue with you isn't possible.
Contra principia negantem non est disputandum.
MY stance: I believe self defense is an inherent right of all people, not just a few who "qualify" or receive "permission".
It is proven all through history that no law stops humans from harming humans (criminal activity) and police can not protect each individual. Thus it is prudent for each of us to examine the best way to defend ourselves and property.
It is proven all through history that having the most advanced weapon of the time is the best defense and deters criminals.
It is proven all through history that an armed society is the best defense and deterrent of oppressive tyrants.
My stance is also no law or regulation is just when it is broad and effects the non criminal in a negative way or somehow assumes guilt before any action.
I am open to your side if you can show how disarming me will benefit me or me being armed endangers you.
I am open to any reasonable alternative to being armed that is as or more effective than the most advanced weapon possible.
I am open to proof that disarming the public does not open them to oppression by a tyrant.
I am open to you having some sight into future unforeseen events where being armed might be prudent.
My opinions are based on my real life experience and actual first hand use of a gun for defense.
I am open to what qualifies you to enter a "reasonable" debate on why my right should be regulated (other than what you saw on TV or read as an opinion by someone else).