D'artagnan wrote:I think, somehow, it's the principle of the thing for the NRA brigade. It's a gun, therefore people should be able to own it. In a way, I understand the argument since I belong to the ACLU, which puts a premium on free speech, no matter how abhorrent.
Having said that, I think it's absurd to argue that the U.S. would be at risk if its citizens couldn't maintain their own private arsenals.
Well, your last sentence... the argument has been brought forward before... But does anybody seriously believe that, for example, the EU countries are on the verge of a new dictatorship because access to guns is restricted or limited?
Does anybody seriously believe that, if those weapons were banned/access would be limited, the US would be subjugated by some madman and turned into a dictatorship?
And then there's the 2. Amendment thingy, of course. Where it says that the "right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed".
Arms? I doesn't say guns, it says arms. So if you are arguing against banning specific guns, do you still make a distinction between certain types of arms, or do you say that the Amendment covers
all kind of weapons?
I, personally, can read the Amendment easily as granting me the right (no, sorry, I already have the right,
not infringing my right) to own, say, a Scud missile.