Posts: 7,955
Threads: 286
Joined: Feb 2003
11-09-2012, 03:00 PM
(This post was last modified: 11-09-2012, 03:11 PM by kandrathe.)
(11-09-2012, 04:48 AM)DeeBye Wrote: I don't disagree with any of this. I agree that people should be allowed to own shotguns and rifles. I just don't see where the 2nd amendment logically leads to the right to own military-grade weapons specifically designed to kill as many people as possible very quickly.
If someone breaks into my house and my shotgun is not enough firepower to defend my family, then owning an AK-47 probably wouldn't save me either.
I think the principle is larger as well, which is why they said 'militia'. Luckily we don't see people being called to muster to defend against the invading army, but that was a part of the original idea. On our northern border it is an anachronism, but not so in fighting drug lords on our southern border. If I lived on remote land on the southern border where thugs armed with military grade weapons trespassed daily, I'd probably want more than a shotgun for home defense. I'd either want enough firepower to defend myself, or leave it.
(11-09-2012, 08:22 AM)eppie Wrote: I also agree there should be some right to defend yourself, but I still think guns are not the option.
What is the better choice? Teeth? Kitchen knives?
”There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, Than are dreamt of in your philosophy." - Hamlet (1.5.167-8), Hamlet to Horatio.