They employ tactics like asking gun owners "Why do you need a fill the blank with the appropriate firearm or associated accessory?"
I would counter their question with a question: Do we question why someone buys a car capable going twice as fast as any speed limit anywhere? No, we are satisfied that because they want it, that’s good enough with the common sense to say if they misuse it and kill somebody (or several somebodies, they're going to jail). So, why should a semi-automatic weapon be any different?
Why do we allow someone to buy unlimited amounts of
alcohol - on the face of it, way beyond the amount that one human could safely
consume - and yet content ourselves with the common sense that if they overdrink
and hurt somebody or somebodies they go to jail? Why would a semiautomatic
firearm be any different?
And, it should be pointed out; there is no Constitutional right to purchase or own alcohol like the Second Amendment provides for firearms.
And, it should be pointed out; there is no Constitutional right to purchase or own alcohol like the Second Amendment provides for firearms.
Why do we allow the sale of tobacco - a known carcinogen and literally a killer of millions - that has no positive benefit other
than to quench someone else’s desire for it. Yet, we let people buy it without questioning why they do it. And they're allowed to buy it with no special permits, waiting periods or background checks. And when people misuse tobacco, nobody
throws a hissy and calls for its ban. So why should a firearm be treated
differently than tobacco.
And, remember; there is no Constitutional right to purchase or own alcohol like the Second Amendment provides for firearms.
And, remember; there is no Constitutional right to purchase or own alcohol like the Second Amendment provides for firearms.
Its called freedom and individual liberties and, oh yes, in the case of firearms it's the legal premise that “the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed” just
like the Second Amendment in the Bill of RIGHTS to the US Constitution says.
Yet, one has to ask, why is it that liberals are
oh-so-eager to deny those Constitutionally-protected rights of gun owners and/or
to legislate them to death to the point they practially don’t exist? And why do they throw a hissy
whenever anyone suggests a law requiring a valid ID to vote? Why should firearms be treated differently than the right to vote? "An elected legislature can trample a man's rights as easily as a king can."* (The Patriot)
Because, as these gun-grabbing liberals demonstrate more and more every day with
their inconsistencies and lack of sound logic, to them “gun control” is only about getting more and more control over everyone else and has little or nothing at all to
do with guns.
The only legitimate version of gun control is the one that allows you to hit what you’re aiming at.
*Emmerich, Roland, director. The patriot. Columbia Pictures, 2000.