I believe it is amoral NOT to have the right to keep and bear arms. Imagine if some criminal kicked down your door(with or without a gun), wouldn't you like to have that moral authority to shoot back or defend yourself? Maybe you need to keep a knife under your pillow in case somebody kicks down your door, hell bent on shooting up you and your family.
What about the moral right to have nuclear weapons? Should every country be allowed them because just some countries have them (and have used them in war)? Should all countries be allowed to retaliate with these bombs?
Why is a moral true of one specific weapon but not another?
Our right as citizens to bear arms is to resist tyranny. If the strongest weapons we're "allowed" to have is semi-autos then we're still MILES behind the very thing we're supposed to be able to fight. Of course we should be allowed to have AT LEAST these weapons.
Apples and oranges. Guns (in the hands of sane normal people) save lives and money. Break-ins, robbery, ect. Can be prevented or ended quickly with guns. An even better reason then that the bad guys (person or government) will always be able to get guns, and having the ability to defend yourself (and use the second amendment) will be needed.
Trying to look at it dispassionately, I guess the difference in opinion is how much defence capability someone needs. I think a semi-automatic is more than is required.
To ask an interesting question, would you support stronger gun laws if an equally effective (but non-lethal) protective device was readily available?
Also semi-automatic weapons fire once every time you bull the trigger. How is this to much, I could see full-auto being to much. But one bullet at a time?
Depends on the law. I have think they need full mental evaluation before they can get a gun. What would the equity effective but non-lethal substitute be (is it beanbag, knife, baseball bat, ect.)
Is it normal to have semi-automatic guns?
↑ View this comment's parent
← View full post
I believe it is amoral NOT to have the right to keep and bear arms. Imagine if some criminal kicked down your door(with or without a gun), wouldn't you like to have that moral authority to shoot back or defend yourself? Maybe you need to keep a knife under your pillow in case somebody kicks down your door, hell bent on shooting up you and your family.
--
dappled
10 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
0
0
What about the moral right to have nuclear weapons? Should every country be allowed them because just some countries have them (and have used them in war)? Should all countries be allowed to retaliate with these bombs?
Why is a moral true of one specific weapon but not another?
--
wigsplitz
10 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
0
0
-
Matt2222
10 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
0
0
Our right as citizens to bear arms is to resist tyranny. If the strongest weapons we're "allowed" to have is semi-autos then we're still MILES behind the very thing we're supposed to be able to fight. Of course we should be allowed to have AT LEAST these weapons.
Apples and oranges. Guns (in the hands of sane normal people) save lives and money. Break-ins, robbery, ect. Can be prevented or ended quickly with guns. An even better reason then that the bad guys (person or government) will always be able to get guns, and having the ability to defend yourself (and use the second amendment) will be needed.
--
dappled
10 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
0
0
Trying to look at it dispassionately, I guess the difference in opinion is how much defence capability someone needs. I think a semi-automatic is more than is required.
To ask an interesting question, would you support stronger gun laws if an equally effective (but non-lethal) protective device was readily available?
--
Matt2222
10 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
1
1
-
toofgod
10 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
0
0
-
Matt2222
10 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
0
0
Also semi-automatic weapons fire once every time you bull the trigger. How is this to much, I could see full-auto being to much. But one bullet at a time?
"dappled" did not use proper "sentencing" therefore should NOT be answered. Conclusion: "dappled" OWNED Matt2222.
Depends on the law. I have think they need full mental evaluation before they can get a gun. What would the equity effective but non-lethal substitute be (is it beanbag, knife, baseball bat, ect.)