Quote:
Originally Posted by ASU2003
Nuclear weapons and material isn't the same as assault rifles. However, I'm sure there are people out there that say that the public should have access to any weapon our military has, just in case we need to defend ourselves from them one day.
|
You're right.
On both counts.
So...where is the line drawn? Certainly no sane person believes that Joe P. Citizen should be allowed to have a nuclear warhead out in his backyard storage shed. Nor, I think, should he be able to own a tank, a bazooka, a grenade launcher, an aircraft carrier....and so on and so forth.
Look...I'm not in favor of gun control. I fully support the 2nd amendment. I am a hunter. I am a hunter safety instructor (NRA certified). I own guns. I own rifles. I own shotguns. I own handguns. I do not own an assault rifle. I don't see the point. Since I can't (for good reason) own one that fires on full auto, then the only other benefit to having one is...that it
looks badass? I don't think so. I got enough of looking badass when I had to carry one in the military, thank you.
So, I really haven't made my mind up on the whole assault rifle ban...still. No one has yet to provide to me, a strong enough argument. One way...
or the other.