Resnic
Diamond Member
- May 2, 2021
- 10,792
- 12,480
- 2,288
I am a firm believer that we have an inalienable right to defend our lives and liberty by any reasonable means, including the use of firearms. However, I do not believe this right extends to owning weapons and accessories designed to inflict mass casualties. That is why I oppose their manufacture, sale or possession by private individuals. (I also believe that possession of a gun during the commission of a felony should result in an additional 10 year jail sentence.)
The Second Amendment does not protect the private ownership of machine guns, so why should weapons and accessories that mimic them be protected?
I do not see this as a panacea for mass shootings, but I do think there should be some limits on their availability to dangerous and mentally unstable people. Would that constitute an intolerable imposition on the rest of us?
Here is the problem.
You, I don't mean this is an insult, are focused on the wrong side of the problem.
40 years ago we didn't have problems with mass shootings and all of this other nonsense. And then we had less gun control.
So what's changed? Our society has. So instead of trying to create more gun laws we should be focused on not banning guns but banning criminals, dopeheads and crazy people.
You can ban every single gun in America but the people who want to go out and hurt others will still be here. But if you ban those people so to speak then you don't need gun control.
I want a society that is safe because we don't allow others who want to hurt people to be a part of it. And we used to have that for the most part.
Gun control is not any kind of answer. Criminal, dopehead and crazy control is the answer.