"... whenever any number of men, calling themselves a government, do anything to another man, or to his property, which they had no right to do as individuals, they thereby declare themselves trespassers, robbers, or murderers, according to the nature of their acts." - Lysander Spooner
"... whenever any number of men, calling themselves a government, do anything to another man, or to his property, which they had no right to do as individuals, they thereby declare themselves trespassers, robbers, or murderers, according to the nature of their acts." - Lysander Spooner
And yes, I support everything short of explosive and other 'special' (i.e. radioactive, chemical, etc.) ordnance being available to the general public (with the exception of those who are currently denied concealed carry access). I'd even say you could own explosives, provided they stay in an area where they won't take out anything you don't own if they go off (i.e. if you have a large enough amount of land that a detonating RPG can't reasonably damage your neighbor's house)
"Lighght"
- This 'poem' was bought and paid for with $2,250 of YOUR money.
Name one thing the government does better than the private sector and I'll show you something that requires the use of force to accomplish.
What's to stop a terrorist sleeper cell from acquiring military-grade weapons and holding an entire airport or trainstation hostage?
Originally Posted by Gaffer
to acquire fully auto weapons you have to have special license. but technically nothing. and even if having weapons were illegal or whatever, what would stop them from getting them anyways? if they want them they will get them.
Does Monkeybone have to choke a bitch?
"Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote!" —Benjamin Franklin, 1759
Bullcrap. If they could've taken the whole airport over, they would have, because they have access to automatic weapons via the black market. If they could take the whole thing over, airport security isn't going to stop them, but a full military alert to a hijacked airport and every plane pulling away from the terminal might.
I'd also wager that if full auto weapons were legal, that measly number of terrorists would have been cut down by security, military, and civilian personnel with guns of their own before they got off more than a few shots.
Everybody thinks of what horror would happen if criminals could get these types of weapons (well, they already can, but that's beside the point), but nobody seems to remember that law-abiding citizens outnumber criminals, and if the law-abiding citizens are all armed, the criminals don't stand a chance.
"Lighght"
- This 'poem' was bought and paid for with $2,250 of YOUR money.
Name one thing the government does better than the private sector and I'll show you something that requires the use of force to accomplish.
So the way it is now, the only way criminals can and do get fully automatic weapons is by sauntering over to the "black market" down the street next to Bojangles and purchasing them. So a few criminals lightly sprinkled throughout the country have gone through the trouble of buying these things illegally through back-door channels. What you want to do is make it easier by making them widely available to everyone. Is that about right?
Originally Posted by Gaffer
The 1% of the law-abiding public they take hostage, who happen to be carrying a compact pistol or whatever, is what's to stop them. IF carry were permitted, which at present it isn't in most places.
Tha advantage of concealed carry lies in the fact that most of the public is good guys. The number of bad guys (terrorists, rapists, school shooters etc.) is quite small in comparison. If EVERYBODY were allowed to carry concealed weapons, most still wouldn't, of course. But a few good guys would. So if terrorists take an airport hostage, it's likely that out of the thousand or so people inside, a small number (10 or 20 maybe?) will probably be carrying. And the terrorists would have no idea which ones they are.
But they can be pretty sure of getting a bullet from an unexpected direction, maybe several unexpected directions... and there won't be much they can do to avoid it. Terrorists aren't afraid to die, but they DO want to complete their mission, whatever it is... and having a number of concealed shooters waiting for them to turn their backs, will very likely foil their mission. As a result, MAYBE THE TERRORISTS WILL DECIDE NOT TO TAKE THE AIRPORT HOSTAGE IN THE FIRST PLACE. And that' s the best of all possible results of allowing universal concealed carry.
If concealed carry were allowed, there would be a lot fewer bad guys trying to do their criminal or terrorist etc. acts, no matter what kind of guns they manage to acquire.
The 2nd amendment protects your and my right to keep AND BEAR arms. That right is being violated in most places. This DC gun law case might start us on the long road back to sanity - where the government trusts the people again.
Hope this helps answer your question, HC. Let me know if you need more.
Last edited by Little-Acorn; 11-14-2007 at 06:29 PM.
"... whenever any number of men, calling themselves a government, do anything to another man, or to his property, which they had no right to do as individuals, they thereby declare themselves trespassers, robbers, or murderers, according to the nature of their acts." - Lysander Spooner