Quote:
Originally Posted by llwhiteoutll
If all the effort that goes into trying to restrict a magazine capacity or making something harder to get because it's black and has a pistol grip went into taking guns away from criminals, it would do a lot more good. Because at the end of the day, the only person who is impacted by a law requiring a mag to be pinned at 10 instead of 15 or 17 is the law abiding citizen, the criminal with the same gun doesn't care about that law and the fact that it is illegal won't affect his decision to use a "prohibited" magazine.
|
Maybe they should just restrict the import and/or manufacture of such weapons? You can't know who the criminals are, and who they aren't. And who's not a criminal but may become one after they snap and pull a gun on someone else. At a certain point you have to draw a hard line. And I really don't understand how people can't see that a hard line is needed after all the violence that has been happening. Everyone on the outside of the US is going "WTF are you people doing?"
To make a very tame analogy, the puck over the glass rule in the NHL. Some people like it. A lot of people hate it. But there was a problem with a select few people that were doing it on purpose, so now you have to punish everyone, even those who do it accidentally. Sorry, you've been given grace on the matter and it's been taken advantage of. We all have to follow speed limits because it's deemed too dangerous to drive faster. Does that mean that everyone driving fast is going to cause an accident? No, but we still have to follow the rules.
Now you've given up the right to regulate yourselves because you obviously can't. The world is absolutely littered with rules that are in place simply because a few idiots ruin it for everyone.
Quote:
|
The problem is that there is no right to "feel safe" in a public place. Imagine trying to legislate that, it would be impossible since you can't define "feeling safe" for 100% of the population.
|
Yeah I dunno, I've never read through the whole constitution, but I'm sure acting in accordance and respect for public safety falls under some part of it. Is there some precedent for suing the government for not acting in the best interest of the population? Maybe that's the way this needs to go to force a new amendment. How can allowing unmarked people to carry weapons that can be used to kill multiple people in a matter of seconds be in the best interest of the vast majority of citizens? How is a non-gun nut supposed to know whether this person is just a law abiding citizen carrying their god-given right to shoot s*** or just a guy that's about to open fire in a public place? I really have a difficult time figuring out how ANYONE could think that is OK.