Maybe I've missed the point a little here as well. I also think that those arguing for their freedoms are also missing the point a bit too. Where I live it is possible to legally (and illegally), obtain firearms. I think one of the biggest differences is the type of firearm that is available in both markets.
The question I would like answered by the Americans who are against gun controls is, whether the right to bear arms which was initiated by a group of rebels against the government of the time, who could not have possbily envisaged the types of weapons available to us today over 200 years later, is meant to give free reign to the people to choose whatever weapon they wish?
If for example in years to come there are hand versions of weapons with 400,000 rpm rates of fire or greater, are these to be available to anyone witha penchant for shooting things? Where does it stop? 20mm Gatlings or chain guns, Greande launchers, tanks, submarines, A10 attack aircraft. All come under the heading "arms", should governments cede that the "right" proclaimed 200 years ago will be applied to these weapons?
Wwhat is the benchmark at which limits are to be set, lethality?, rate of fire?, portability?
If the roving gangs post Katrina were armed with bazookas and M60's does that give you the "right" to escalate your legal arsenal to match it? If not why not? Your government has access to these weapons, so why not ordinary citizens just in case the buggers come looking to take your guns away?
"Ma break out the Minuteman missle launch codes, the FBI wants to take it away from us before we get to fire it at anyone!"
The history of warfare (and frankly that is what you are talking about when you arm yourself against marauding mobs or your own government), exactly matches human behaviour, hit me with your fist I'll use a stick, use a stick and I'll use a rock, use a rock and I'll get a sword and so on. Where does it stop?
|