Quote:
Originally Posted by astronaut x
I agree, but only a simpleton thinks the remedy to this problem is anti-Constitutional.
Arms doesn't mean anything and everything you want to consider it to be.
Why not let everyone own their own nuclear weapon? I mean, hey, is it not your Constitutional right to bear arms? Where and when do you decide what the limit is?
Am I being unreasonable?
As I have said before, there is nothing wrong with owning weapons for hunting and self defense. I'm not anti-gun and I don't believe most people who want to see something done about the issue is either. There is no need for assault weapons in our society.
People like to hide behind this thought that If civilians are armed with the same assault weapons our police and military use, that somehow that makes them safer from tyranny and government abuse of power. I can assure you, if the government ever wants to take your freedom from you and change the order of things, they have way more highly sophisticated methods at their disposal.
|
It also doesn't mean the Constitution needs to be altered either.
Of course it doesn't mean any weapon, that and such things like nuclear weapons have already been clarified by the supreme Court over the years.
And not everyone thinks gun ownership is about protection from tyranny, etc. In fact, I'd say most all gin owners own guns for reasons other than that.