Quote:
Originally Posted by dc_dux
Didnt Obama vote against the state law that would have provided a loophole to a local ordinance? Isnt that supporting local autonomy?
|
In a very disadvantaged sort of way, yes. What if there was a locality that wanted to allow it's citizens to own machine guns in Illinois? Would Obama have voted for that?
Quote:
Originally Posted by dc_dux
I was speaking for myself..I dont represent the American people and I have no idea how many would agree with my example.
The ignorance is in the generalization.... "that the majority of americans that support 'reasonable' gun control show themselves to be more afraid of what their fellow americans COULD do instead of what actual criminals ARE doing"....unless you have data to support it.
|
From what i've seen, just on here even, my generalization has proven true. Some examples....
1) why shouldn't civilians own machine guns
2) why should 'assault weapons' be banned
3) who needs more than one gun? one gun a month?
So far, 'reasonable' gun control legislation affects only a single entity and that is the person that would abide by the law. The person who doesn't give a damn about the law isn't affected by it until AFTER he/she commits the crime and possibly is caught. Tell me what is 'reasonable' about gun control laws that the criminal is not going to abide by?
-----Added 9/12/2008 at 01 : 50 : 52-----
Quote:
Originally Posted by Baraka_Guru
Guns (and other arms). Try to keep up here.
|
this doesn't square with part of your last comment
Quote:
They are talking about the same people: ordinary citizens who might at any moment need to take on a soldier's role. I don't read this as a blank cheque on arms ownership.
|
so how do you differentiate the arms that the people can own and bear without being infringed (that 'shall not be infringed' part is kind of important also) and still prevent the 'blank check' on firearms ownership?