make WWAY your homepage  Become a fan on facebook  Follow us on twitter  Receive RSS Newsfeeds  MEMBERS: Register | Login

Tired Argument

The argument that the 2nd amendment was not intended to include modern firearms is no less absurd than claiming that the 1st amendment was not intended to include modern technologies. Under this claim, our right to post our opinions on this very web site should not be covered. We should be left to write a physical letter to the editor of a newspaper, in hopes that it would actually be printed, or go gather at the town hall to express our opinions.

Further, the supreme court has upheld that the 2nd amendment is a "right of the people" not a "right of the militia".

Whether you believe your neighbor has a "need" for an item, be it an assault rifle or otherwise, is irrelevent in a free society. To ban an item you must show that it's possesion significantly endangers the person or property of others within society. When making this argument, be sure to keep things in perspective. Contrast the rate of assault weapons ownership and use in crimes and death with other products on the market, like automobiles. For both gross and population adjusted values, the death rate is higher than for firearms, let alone assault weapons. Is their really a need for you or your neighbor to own a sports car, designed to exceed the legal speed limit, especially when you consider that a third of all traffic fatalities are related to excessive speed (and what criminal wants a slow get-away car). Wouldn't we save more lives by banning sports cars? Or should concede that if people want to speed, they will. Conceding this, why would we curtail the rights of law abiding citizens in their choice of automobile. We accept that there will be some who will abuse their freedom and speed, and that in some cases this abuse will have devastatng results.

Killers will seek to kill, with or without assault weapons (assuming you could actually get rid of them). Please stop advocating the removal of this individual liberty from law abiding citizens. Doing so will not save lives or reduce crime rates, gun-control law history in our country has shown this. Banning fully automatic weapons (real assault weapons) 27 years ago has not kept them out of the hands of criminals. Banning their semi-automatic cousins will be no more effective.

Reply

The content of this field is kept private and will not be shown publicly.
  • Web page addresses and e-mail addresses turn into links automatically.
  • Lines and paragraphs break automatically.

More information about formatting options

To prevent automated spam submissions leave this field empty.
CAPTCHA
Please re-enter the code shown in the image below.