View Single Post
Old July 28th, 2009, 1:32 am
Chris's Avatar
Chris  Undisclosed.gif Chris is offline
Custodian of Hades Vault
Join Date: 21st January 2007
Location: Monoc Securities
Posts: 4,653
Re: U.S. Second Amendment: post-Heller

Originally Posted by purplehawk View Post
Oy! It would be a whole lot easier to protect ourselves if there weren't so damned many guns in circulation, eh?
Herein lies the conundrum for a lot of people
-if there were no guns in circulation, by definition, there would be no gun crime; however:
-in order to protect oneself from a real or perceived threat of someone else with a gun, one may want to have a gun themselves.

IE: People need guns because other people have guns. Yet, as a society, we'd be safer with less guns, but people would feel less secure.

Myself, as I've noted before, I favor the banning of a few weapons that have no use in target or sport shooting or in basic home defense. The weapons I have in mind were designed for war purposes and while I admit it might be cool to own one, I don't think that it's really necessary for the protection / hunting / target shooting. I don't want to take away any (non-felon or legally insane) person's right to own the latter types of weapons. And I don't see it as violating the literal text of the second amendment to ban the weapons I have in mind, since I'd still allow many, many types.

RLF_Icons (signature)

In case I forget: Opinions posted in the US Political Discussion forum are posted as a member and not as a moderator

Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask and he will tell you the truth. - Oscar Wilde

We're all human, aren't we? Every human life is worth the same, and worth saving. - Kingsley

Sustainability should be a part of what we do every day.
Sponsored Links