|
"Now, as to high explosives and weapons of mass destruction, I think it's fairly obvious that the benefit to public safety created by banning such things greatly outweighs the abridgment of personal liberty that such a ban represents. These weapons are so indiscriminately destructive that there are very few, if any, ways to utilize them that does not represent an obvious danger to innocent bystanders. I cannot think of any way that a person could use a brick of C4, canister of VX nerve gas, or suitcase nuke to defend himself/herself that would not pose a likely, if not certain, threat to the safety of anyone else around."
The problem with the banning of anything related to the 2nd ammendment, for any reason, starts a crack in the entire debate that weakens further arguments for non restrictions of lesser arms. If the whole idea was to have militia equally armed so that no standing army could act, I believe this was meant to disuade any one president from becomming a king or monarch,(include sir cuomo also) then so be it.
|