Reply to Thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="mugsy" data-source="post: 2067491" data-attributes="member: 18914">No one anywhere, no one at all, is arguing that the killing of the children wasn&#039;t horrible - so let&#039;s drop that line of discussion.&nbsp; However, what has very obviously and demonstrably happened is that since, we were told, the weapon of choice in Newtown was an &quot;assault rifle&quot; it has gained a special stigma and has become the focus for a wedge into gun control.&nbsp; Right now the antis are getting a whole lot more traction out of the &quot;we just want to ban assault rifles, not guns in general&quot; argument than they otherwise would be able to gain with a simple &quot;ban guns&quot; argument.Likewise, no one here at least is arguing for banning handguns or shotguns, rather the argument is that the weapon is more or less immaterial and really could have been easily replaced.&nbsp; It is the crime and the criminal that matter and that telling law-abiding citizens that they cannot own something because somewhere, sometime a criminal may use it for ill purposes is a silly argument made worse by the fact that the right to possess weapons is a specifically enumerated and protected right.At least, that&#039;s my take.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="mugsy, post: 2067491, member: 18914"] No one anywhere, no one at all, is arguing that the killing of the children wasn't horrible - so let's drop that line of discussion. However, what has very obviously and demonstrably happened is that since, we were told, the weapon of choice in Newtown was an "assault rifle" it has gained a special stigma and has become the focus for a wedge into gun control. Right now the antis are getting a whole lot more traction out of the "we just want to ban assault rifles, not guns in general" argument than they otherwise would be able to gain with a simple "ban guns" argument. Likewise, no one here at least is arguing for banning handguns or shotguns, rather the argument is that the weapon is more or less immaterial and really could have been easily replaced. It is the crime and the criminal that matter and that telling law-abiding citizens that they cannot own something because somewhere, sometime a criminal may use it for ill purposes is a silly argument made worse by the fact that the right to possess weapons is a specifically enumerated and protected right. At least, that's my take. [/QUOTE]

Verification