. . . the inclusion of the phrases "hunting and shooting." Equally important as the phrase he did not include: "self-defense."
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Pond, James Pond
I know people have a visceral dislike of any attempts to control guns but, really, is what he said wrong?
|
In some ways, yes, in some ways, no. It is not wrong to say that guns shouldn't be in the hands of "criminals on the street." However, there are a great many of us who are neither soldiers on the battlefield, nor criminals on the street. His speech makes no provision for us. What then? A fairly simple change in law could change many gun owners from law-abiding gun owners to "criminals on the street." For example, a law limiting all handgun magazines to 10 rounds would force every Glock 19 owner to either turn in magazines, destroy them, or be a criminal. Never mind the fact that there are millions of people who own guns with 10+ round magazines, none of whom have killed anybody.
The other problem that I have is the attempt to make gun control seem like a reasonable "common sense" measure. It's not. Not by any stretch of the imagination. All it does is disarm the populace and potential victims.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Pond, James Pond
The AK47 is a military weapon by design, and I doubt anyone wants them being used by criminals. I can't argue with either of those points.
|
Many firearms are either military by design, or have their origins in military design. 1911, AR15, Mini-14, Beretta M9 (is that the model?) . . . Rifles based on the AR15 platform are commonly called "Modern Sporting Rifles" these days. They're actually a very good choice for multi-purpose rifles. Do I want them used by criminals? No, but I don't particularly want criminals using a blunderbuss, either. Or a crossbow. Or a bolt-action rifle. The origin of the design is of no consequence.