Quote:
Originally posted by JSDSKI
Why is "gun control" always the equivalent of "taking all our guns away" in this discussion?
Society, and its "enforcement arm" aka government(s), regulate and control all sorts of behavior, rights, privileges, and activities, with the informed consent of the governed, without banning them - except for criminal acts.
What is the real loss to gun ownership benefits by controlling access to weapons like we control access to driving on the street, racing on a track, practicing medicine, or dog ownership (substitute your personal favorite) through licensing and regulation?
|
Unlike the other things you mention, the 2nd Amendment is a
right. Rights should be subject to enfringement only in the most extreme circumstances. Freedom of speech in some situations during times of war (location of embedded reporters for example), yelling fire in theatre, etc.
Controlling access to guns has proven ineffective in curbing crime. In fact, the opposite has been the result in the places that have the most extreme laws (Washington DC, England, Australia).
Would you feel safer in Switzerland where "OMG
everyone has military weapons at home?" or California?
Gun owners/citizens would lose a fundamental right in a counterproductive attempt to obtain more security. The person who is against "having one of those things in my house" is in some way being protected by the neighbors that
do have guns. Not knowing who in the neighborhod is armed is a deterent to certain crimes.
"Those who would sacrifice essential liberties for a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
- Benjamin Franklin