Re: Gun control discussions in the wake of the Newtown, CT deaths
Originally Posted by exzel
Interesting. We shouldn’t be exercising our constitutional rights because we concern ourselves over the possibilities of mass shootings, but we should be enacting tougher gun legislation for law-abiding citizens because of it?
That's how all laws and rules are for the most part, unfair to good people. We wouldn't need very many laws if everyone was honest and nice and unselfish. This happens at our workplace a lot: one person screws up and the rest of us have to suffer for it because tougher rules are put in place.
Anyway, let's what level of firearms laws are acceptable based on what is stated as our constitutional right, as a "well-regulated militia"? I'm assuming they wrote "well-regulated" for a reason. In other words, for our right to bear arms to make any sense,there has to be sensible regulation. That's all I'm talking about. Part of sensibility is the common good--do the benefits of unfettered ownership of machine guns by the untested public outweigh the liabilities? Based on death by handguns statisitics compared to other countries, I'd say no, the benefits do not outweigh the liabilities. That's the real elephant in the room: why does our country have so many more gun deaths than other countries, even in countries where gun ownership is relatively high?