HN user
Having the ability and/or willingness to protect others is entirely different from mandating it. The NRA is asking for the ability to exercise the right to defend oneself (and others) if needed, without censure. You would require that civilians purposefully put themselves in that situation - to go looking for trouble - in order to have that right of defense.
In what way, in fact, is that the logic of the "pro-gun party?" I myself have not heard the NRA or others ever say that non-gun owners deserve to die. Please elaborate.
This proposal assumes 2 things: 1) insane people are incapable of passing 80 hour courses; 2) sane people will not go insane in the future. Both of these assumptions are incorrect.
Taking the argument to its logical conclusion: if you aren't willing to kill on behalf of the unarmed, you aren't worthy of defending yourself. Kill for me, or you deserve to die. That logic seems flawed.