| Metallicube said: I see nothing wrong with stronger background checks on weapons, and the banning of assault rifles. After all, why would people need assault rifles anyway? I completely get and respect the idea of defending yourselves against tyrannical government, but lets be practical here in 2013.. Are people in America really going to open fire on the government and military if government gets bad enough? I don't see that ever happening.. If they do, they will be arrested and the government will have an excuse to tighten their tyranical grip anyway. On the other hand, no matter what restrictions you put on guns, criminals will find ways to get their hands on them no matter what. That's what criminals do. So essentially you'll have less "good" people with guns, and more "bad" people with guns. Doesn't sound like a good thing to me. |
It isn't about need.
Why would they need to infringe your right to own a weapon? <- this is the problem. I may never own a weapon, but I certainly don't appreciate having my constitutional rights limited because of a select few incidences.
The assault weapons aren't the issue, these nutcases would have just used a shotgun/handgun(s)/grenades/bomb/whatever to inflict just as much damage.
It's absurd to suggest that by limiting capacity of magazines, this would mitigate damage.
It doesn't even begin to address the fact that criminals have their own networks to procure weapons. Ultimately this will prevent weapons from being purchased by law-abiding citizens, and do nothing against stopping criminals.
