|
Originally posted by Just the Village Idiot
Most people that have guns do violence to individuals or to threated violence???
Post a link that backs that up. A small percentage of the people (i.e. criminals) own guns to perpetrate violence -- but they get all the press.
What exactly is a handgun, semi-automatic, etc. for? Its purpose is to do violence, and the alternative use is to have it as a threat of violence. What is a gun for, except shooting, or letting people know you can shoot them? Doesn't make toast.
Yes, many guns are for hunting... but the kinds of gun are sincerely different. You don't need a handgun, or an assault rifle to kill a deer. An uzi sucks for killing a thanksgiving turkey.
(could that be due to gun ownership laws and the fact that you can buy a gun illegally on almost any street corner)
No those people shouldn't (although they do) have rights to guns... but law abiding citizens do.
The right to use them can be differentiated. Until a gun is used to kill, how can you tell who has the right and who doesn't? The basic fact is that guns are for killing. Why have to tool if you don't want to do the deed?
You people talk out of both sides of your mouth.... you have to read the context, but militias are now defined as the National Guard or the Army Reserves.
Give me a break!
Where did I redefine "militia"?
All the criminals would have to do at that point is call themselves a militia...
No. Because I don't become a Zebra because I claim to be one. It isn't what I call myself, but what I am determined by the judicial system to be, that the law applies to. A court, the only body that can interpret the constitution, can decide if someone is part of a militia. That is exactly what the constitution expects.
|