Quote:
Originally Posted by Azure
But you're completely off your rocker here, even WITH the sarcasm. Pretty sure a rocket launcher would be labeled as explosive ordnance, and not a firearm, so sorry....your point is moot.
|
Well, I'm pretty darn sure that knives, swimming pools and cars do not fall under firearm legislation, but if you can show otherwise I'd be happy if you could correct me.
Pro-gun people can walk around touting that "bans" on guns are hypocritical because if you ban one thing that can kill people, you have to ban all things that kill people.
But if an anti-gun person says that if you drop bans on one type of weapon, it would be hypocritical to be for a ban of another type of weapon - that's off limits because it falls under the "explosive ordinance"?!?
There needs to be a line drawn as to what level of weapon the general populace will have access to. You can't say "if the line is that people can't have handguns, it's a slippery slope to swimming pools and baseball bats" while saying "rocket launchers don't count because they fall under a different ordinance".
I think most reasonable people are for a line somewhere. The argument that if we ban weapons that kill people we would then have to ban cars and swimming pools is horribly flawed in that it is arguing for no ban at all. So I get my rocket launcher. W00t!