 |
|
on arms
Posted on: October 6, 2017 at 07:27:33 CT
o'lineydisciple MU
Posts:
6882
Member For:
26.13 yrs
Level:
User
M.O.B. Votes:
0
(1) Everyone, nearly everyone I'd think, agrees that there are certain types of weapons (arms) that individuals should not be able to legally possess.
I.e., a nuclear bomb. It should be illegal for me as a citizen to possess nuclear armament.
The argument is, where do you draw the line? At what point is a firearm or weapon so deadly that a civilian must not be allowed to possess it?
(2) Even so, "making a law" will not prevent those hellbent on breaking a law. For example, in the case of the Vegas shooter, more aggressive restrictions on firearms would have (?) changed the "what" and the "how" of how he killed people, but very likely not the "if".
As for your second question, I'm pro choice and in all but the most severe cases, anti capital punishment, so I'm not the one to ask.
I.e., a nuclear bomb. It should be illegal for me as a citizen to possess nuclear armament.
The argument is, where do you draw the line? At what point is a firearm or weapon so deadly that a civilian must not be allowed to possess it?
(2) Even so, "making a law" will not prevent those hellbent on breaking a law. For example, in the case of the Vegas shooter, more aggressive restrictions on firearms would have (?) changed the "what" and the "how" of how he killed people, but very likely not the "if".
As for your second question, I'm pro choice and in all but the most severe cases, anti capital punishment, so I'm not the one to ask.
Please explain why this message is being reported.
MESSAGE THREAD
on arms - o'lineydisciple MU - 10/6 07:27:33
-