Do they mean all anti-gun ownership laws?
I understand being against laws that prohibit pistols, shotguns, hunting rifles, etc. People should have the right to defend themselves and they should have the right to engage in lawful hunting. But I often wonder just where "the line" exists. For example, in this mindset should I be able to own something like a Tek-9? How about a semi-automatic rifle? Fully automatic rifle? Machine gun? Chain-gun? Bazooka? Shoulder-fired missile? Flame thrower? Various other forms of artillery? A cannon is, after all, really just a big gun, and the group does say "stop anti gun ownership laws". What's more, if you are against all anti gun ownership laws, then does that mean you believe that people should be able to own as much weaponry as they can afford?
Personally I am in favor of at least some gun ownership laws. These would include laws that, for example, would prevent my neighbor from becoming better armed than the Luxembourg army. Furthermore, call me crazy, but I want the police and the military to be better armed than the citizenry. In theory they screen out most of the crazies before they join the military or become police.
2 comments:
"To disarm the people; that it was the best and most effectual way to enslave them." George Mason
So because I don't think people should be able to own flame-throwers I'm somehow advocating for the enslavement of a populace? That's drama worthy of Charton "take your stinking paws off me you damn dirty ape" Heston.
Post a Comment