Rigby5
Diamond Member
There are plenty of weapon that citizens aren't allowed to own, cruise missiles, nukes, WMD... Did controlling these arms end in a total ban? No. Maybe you need training wheels for this subject.The mere fact that we are required to defend the words "the right of the people to keep and bear arms" as intending to protect individual rights is CONCLUSIVE EVIDENCE that all gun control is intended to end in BAN AND CONFISCATION.
You cannot vote for these people. EVER.
.
Totally and completely wrong.
There not only is NO weapon citizens are not allowed to own, but it would be totally illegal to ever consider such an outright ban.
More dangerous weapons allow for stricter regulation, but never an outright ban.
If nothing else, all weapons come from civilian research, so civilians clearly need and do have access and ownership.
And yes, the more controls there are on weapons, the more they result in inappropriate confiscations and arrests.
The point is not over bans but that the government wants stupid bans that are essentially illegal because it causes the police and military to have a monopoly instead of the citizen soldiers the founders envisioned.
It is the military and police who we need to regulate weapons access to the most, because they are the ones most likely to become corrupt and a danger.
And clearly many candidates HAVE called for a total ban on what they call Assault weapons, even though in history, that includes all small rifles, all pistols, all shotguns, etc.