| Mr Khan said: Simple: if it isn't a handgun and isn't expressly for the purpose of hunting, it's an assault weapon that nobody who doesn't want to foment rebellion has any legitimate business owning. |
What about those who just want "protection" from the government. No initial rebellion. Just the exercise of the non-aggression axiom.
Is that not a legitimate reason? If the government is not interested in aggression, then it wouldn't be a problem. Not to say that there doesn't need to be a legitimate reason to own something. And if were to ban these firearms, we should restrict the same to certain other products that are excessively unecessary to the point of harm, but still bought. An example would be the sugar-based foods filled with corn-syrup in the diet of Americans. Certainly we can survive on other food, and there is no legitimate reason to eat THAT food.
Essay Pro