Quote:
Originally Posted by PeterV
Your comparison is rejected on the basis of absurdity. Of course, advances in technology mean that guns are more dangerous because guns are weapons. Weapons are meant to hurt and kill but presses are different. All this time I've been trying to make a simple point that it makes sense to regulate more dangerous things more.
|
If those guns were not dangerous none of us would want one. I want the most deadly, dangerous gun I can pack to hurt and kill those who would kill me. A quote attributed to a Texas Ranger went in a story something like this: "lady notices cocked and locked .45 on his hip and asked if that wasn't dangerous" Texas Ranger replied, "of course it is dangerous or I wouldn't pack the darn thing"!
You still trying the old ploy that once worked of trying to intimidate people and make them fearful of a Constitutional right by demonizing an inantimate object? How is that gun control working out in jolly old England old chap? eh?
Would you stop putting your specific propaganda on
advanced communication devices? The power of the press is indeed more to be feared than guns in the rightful hands of the owners of this Republic.
To prohibit a citizen from wearing or carrying a war arm . . . is an unwarranted restriction upon the constitutional right to keep and bear arms. If cowardly and dishonorable men sometimes shoot unarmed men with army pistols or guns, the evil must be prevented by the penitentiary and gallows, and not by a general deprivation of constitutional privilege. [Wilson v. State, 33 Ark. 557, at 560, 34 Am. Rep. 52, at 54 (1878)]