Lebell

Actually, I can give you a straight forward argument against both.


Our laws ideally work on the principle of allowing freedoms unless there is an overwhelming reason to curb them. In the case of the first ammendment, the government is not allowed to bar speech because of vague or unrealized threats, but can only ban speech based on reasonable threats.

Now, lets take this same principle and apply it to the second ammendment.

Can you show that over all, there is a greater, realized threat from a .50 caliber rifle or a rifle with a 30 round magazine? Looking back at data, the answer is "no". There has never been an instance of a .50 caliber weapon being used by terrorists. (one, they are very expensive, and two, shooting at a plane isn't easy and a .50 cal isn't inherently more capable of taking a plane down than a .308) The same with a 30 round magazine. As I've said above, less than one percent of gun related crimes are committed with "assault rifles" and less than that with magazines over 10 rounds. (An unmodified Chinese SKS rifle actually doesn't even HAVE an external magazine, it comes with a 10 round built in magazine, yet the VPC calls all of these "assault rifles" regardless.)

So it boils down to the same question: why make a law for a non-existant problem, unless the law is just to make people 'feel good'?

__________________
"Of all tyrannies, a tyranny exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end, for they do so with the approval of their own conscience." – C. S. Lewis

The ONLY sponsors we have are YOU!

Please Donate!