utdbear
Catalina Wine Mixer....POW!
- Jul 6, 2004
- 2,993
- 281
- 45
- Faith
- Baptist
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Republican
But your need, or lack of it, isn't what the law is based on. It's based on the fact that assault weapons are a threat to public safety, and unlike other things, there is no overriding need to balance against that danger.
Same logic as to why you can't buy a nuclear weapon.
It is illegal right now to purchase a nuclear weapon.
Also, I own an AR-15, 10 and about 50,000 rounds of ammo. Never have I come close to shooting anybody, so your threat of public safety is void.
Um, how are you comparing them? Because they are not the same thing.
-- A2SG, to start with, one is a good where the other is a service....
An AR-15 is legal under current law, as is an AR-10, as is getting abortion. The reason you want 'assault weapons' gone is because you see no need for one to have such a weapon.
Don't you think I could find a reason why someone doesn't NEED an abortion?
What if I determined that you don't NEED to have lawyer present in order for police officers to question you or NEED them to have a search warrant in order to search you or your home? Those rights are just as individual as my right to own a semi automatic firearm to defend, hunt, target shoot, whatever lawful activity I deem necessary for my survival, entertainment, or anything else I so desire.
Point is, is that rights aren't based on 3rd party views on what others need. You don't get to dictate what I do or don't need if it's currently an individual right as guaranteed by the Constitution. You seem to be missing that.
Upvote
0