This looks like a good idea.

[sirs]

And let's remind the audience that this isn't about "arming everyone".  That's an argument no one is making.  This is about the freedom that everyone could chose to be armed, so long as they're not convicted of a felony, have a severe physical disability, or have a mental disorder

[Xavier_Onassis]

This indeed IS about arming everyone.

Can't you read?

[sirs]

Can't you read for context?

[Plane]

   The Amish do not vote, so their citizenship has a flaw .

[Xavier_Onassis]

The Amish are somehow respected by the state governments and given exceptions, which is adequate and as it should be.
They have the right to vote, in any case, and somehow have managed to be accommodated by state and local laws.

[Plane]

This indeed IS about arming everyone.

Can't you read?

   That is what you suggested, and I like your suggestion .

    Arming everyone that can possibly be armed would be a lot smoother if there were education and screening of everyone too.

    This really shouldn't be much harder than teaching reading to everyone who is able .

      Since you proposed it and I accept it , and no one can point out any unfeasibility, I would call this resolved.

       What I started the thread with was a few amateur scientists trying to find out if the massacre at Charlie Ebdo would have been prevented by having one or a small number of private guns in the hands of the victims.  Sadly they found that the circumstances favored the attackers .

     What I want to say is a good idea is testing the idea.

[Xavier_Onassis]

The test of this idea proved that arming everyone would not have been useful.

I oppose arming everyone. I suggested this in the same way that Jonathan Smith proposed that the Irish famine could be solved by eating Irish babies.

Again I am not for taking away all the gun nuts guns, because that would be even worse than letting them run loose.

If I had a time machine, I would be for going back to around 1953 and disarming people then. Now there are too many guns and too many gun fanatics who essentially think of guns as toys.

[sirs]

Here's something strange...I agree with xo.  I also oppose the Government mandating that everyone be armed with a firearm. 

Instead, I support what the founders believed in so much, that they made it the 2nd most important amendment to the constitution....that every legal citizen, have the right to arm themselves with a firearm.  And as long as they're not convicted of a felony, have an overt physical disability, or a diagnosed with a mental disorder, that right is sacrosanct.....just as much as the 1st amendment is to this country

[Plane]

   Generally the fewer things the government insists on the better.

     But perhaps the government should insist on a few things, and having everyone armed is a good candidate for a right that we should be forced to enjoy.

       The math works good for it.

       Less than one percent of us are murderous, the Army has found that unless the training and conditioning is focused on it ,almost a fifth of us will not even shoot at an enemy in Combat.

       So if you arm everyone you are mostly arming the level headed and the harmless, exactly who you would want to be armed .

       If you are confiscating arms you will necessarily have a strong bias to disarm the harmless and level headed and leave the few violent well armed.

        Since this cannot be avoided , it is better by far to take the positive action that is actually a possibility to accomplish .