The Danish political party, Dansk Folkeparti, which literally means "Danish Folksparty", has proposed a law change to the parlament. Along with Venstre and Socialdemokraterne, which of Venstre is the sitting government, the proposal is expected to succeed.
Why? You ask.
Here's there opinion: "Bullies and immigrantgangs can take part in bandwars with less risk, when they wear bulletproof vests, and I do not see any reason to help them with that" says vicechair for DF, Peter Skaarup.
Firearms in Denmark as well in most of Europe are illegal. Private can not posses firearms, for any purpose. Guns are only permitted if you a professional hunter, or National Guard. Until now, the system has worked fine. Violence has been low, and we, as Danes, have not felt the need to carry. But in the past few months, gang crimes and shootouts have risen dramatically. I am still against permitting firearms to private persons, in Denmark. I can see the logic in the US, where I would approve of carrying. But societies are different, and we do not possess a law like the second amendment. We have had no war of independence, and therefore no real reason to protect and fight. Yes, peasants did once have guns, but for the sole purpose of hunting.
I can not understand that political parties have thought the thought to prohibit the ability to protect yourself, without harming others. The police wear vests. Should that be illegal to? I can not see the logic in not permitting a person to protect themselves against bullets, to no others harm. Is that a victimless crime? I would say so. It is taking the freedom to defend and protect. And I think we all realize that no matter how illegal it is, the gangs are still going to use them. So I might ask: Are the politicians really that stupid that they prohibit vests in general, when they know only the law abiding citizen will follow?
Towards Freedom,
Jonathan
2 kommentarer:
You write: "I am still against permitting firearms to private persons, in Denmark. I can see the logic in the US, where I would approve of carrying. But societies are different, and we do not possess a law like the second amendment. We have had no war of independence, and therefore no real reason to protect and fight."
The issue, in my opinion, is not whether Denmark has a "second amendment" or the equivalent in its constitution, not whether Denmark fought a war of independence, not whether the crime rate is low, and not whether Denmark's society is different from that in the United States.
I believe the issue is whether any government has the right to restrict the purchase of firearms by law-abiding private citizens for self-defense. I do not believe they have that right. The proper role of government is to protect its citizens right to their own life, liberty and property so long as those citizens do not engage in force or fraud against others.
Possessing a gun for self-defense creates no harm to others and therefore should not be restricted.
In Liberty,
Dr. Tom Stevens
Chair
Objectivist Party
While I agree with Dr. Stevens in principle, I can certainly see the political issues that would arise from pushing for limits to gun control. I would focus on attacking the bullet proof vet restriction first, as if you start pushing for the right to arms, opponents might use that in an attempt to discredit you. (Considering that the public should be very receptive to complaints about vests, but there could be issues (from a public approval standpoint) regarding firearms.
Send en kommentar