Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Eric5273
Being how this is your viewpoint, I'm sure you will side with me in my attempt to open a store and sell these to the general public...
And after that, I want to open up a dealership selling these:
After all, as you brilliantly stated -- weapons don't do the killing, people do. So as long as murder is against the law, selling weapons like these won't impact society any.  |
That kind of analogy is so ignorant and exactly the kind of fear mongering anti-gun advocates, and anti-gar marriage advocates by the way, use. "If we let them have handguns then the next thing they'll want to have under the 2nd amendment is a rocket launcher." ("If we let two men get married then next thing you know people will want to marry their dogs.") I would ask you whether the war in Iraq was started by a Stinger missile or a Bradley fighting vehicle, or was it started by people?
The ruling affirms the right of people to own and keep handguns in their homes. It still allows for reasonable regulation of firearms. It is not a blank check for people to go out and obtain things that are currently and always will be illegal for civilian ownership. Felons will not be allowed to own guns, the people of D.C. are not allowed to carry them outside of their homes, and that is true of most states as well. I do not agree with the absolute right of people to keep and bear arms but I also do not agree with illogical and oppressive regulation of firearms.
I love Diane Feinstein's statement that we are now less safe in America because of the ruling. I wholeheartedly disagree with that statement and I also don't agree that it applies to Feinstein as she made sure her bodyguards got concealed weapons permits that are impossible to get in her part of California.