To disarm is not necessarily to protect (Your view)

Reader opinion By Reader opinion
on March 31, 2013 at 7:45 PM, updated March 31, 2013 at 7:49 PM
Without guns in the hands of civilians, Americans would still be British subjects of the Queen of England today. America`s Revolutionary War and the War of 1812 are a testimony to this. Had American civilians not been armed, the Japanese would have followed through on their plan to invade the mainland of the U.S. after Pearl Harbor.

Had Swiss civilians not been armed, Adolph Hitler would have invaded Switzerland as he had done with the rest of Germany`s neighbors. The Romans talked Carthage into surrendering its arms with false promises of security then slaughtered many of them and put the rest in slavery.

This list of armed civilians making an aggressor rethink plans for invading their country is extensive. So while guns are dangerous in the wrong hands, civilians possessing them has saved hundreds of millions of lives throughout history without ever having to fire a shot.

The Germans and Russians, among many others, trusted their governments too and turned their guns over to them and nearly a 100 million of their citizens paid for that trust with their lives. You are your family`s best security, not government. You love your family more than the government does or at least you should & provide for their protection.

Tyrants always use the excuse of "we have to disarm you in order to protect you." 

Billy E. Price