....and So The Question Becomes "why Shouldn't They?"

There is a debate on another thread that one member states that he likes that his government (in paradise) controls guns and that people who mind their own business won't need to carry one. Without debating and crushing that fallacious argument again, I will simply pose the reciprocal question to:

"Why should people be allowed to carry guns?"

Why shouldn't they?

We must first accept that a free people in a free country have rights. These rights are not "granted" by a government. If they are "granted" by a government, then they are not rights, but rather privileges and as such are under the power and purview of that government and are subject to legal revocation.

The rights of free people are self evident, and granted by our Creator, or by our evolution as free people. They are not subject to a government or king, or other power or potentate. They belong to us and us alone, as individuals. For a government, king, or other power or potentate to try to abrogate, infringe upon, or deny us those rights is an illegal act because our rights do not belong to the government.

Here in the United States we have the Constitution. Some people with no idea what the Constitution really does, incorrectly believe that it "grants" us our rights as free Americans. This is woefully wrong, inaccurate, and dangerous thinking. The Constitution enumerates our rights as being ours, and it limits the power of the government. It grants us nothing. We already have them. It denies power to the government over us.

So my question is this:

If a free person chooses to go armed for lawful self defense against predatory human and criminal behavior...why shouldn't they?