Originally Posted by Jim in CT
You have an absolutely valid point that I may be over-reacting to something that looks more threatening than it actually is. That's probably my knee-jerk reaction to ths shooting.
Probably, but you would be the best judge, if your honest, of why you are reacting.
I still feel most guys who own these weapons are trying to compensate for some other physical shortcoming.
But you would not be the best judge on other peoples actions or reactions.
I don't buy the slippery slope argument, either, why do we assume that things will always go to an extreme? I love grizzly bears, been to Alaska twice to see them. But I like laws that ban keeping them as pets. I'm not concerned that if the feds today tell me I can't have a grizzly bear, that tomorrow they're going to take away my golden retriever.
Be concerned first, if the feds are doing what is legitimately in their power to do rather than trampling on either inalienable or constitutional rights. And if the feds legally have the right to take away your golden retriever they have the power to take most anything from you. And if you allow, as a society, the feds to deny you any right, they have power to deny you all rights. If you are going to go on feelings and knee jerk reactions rather than principles, you have abandoned principle and opened the door to your subjection to any whim of the feds.
Johnny, a lot of the things you said would be banned next (like skydiving) are not exactly the same. If I go skydiving, I'm taking on the risk myself. The only person at risk is me, and it's my choice to go skydiving.
If the feds have the power to tax your risk taking, such as not buying health insurance, they have power to tax your skydiving. They could make it expensive enough to discourage your risk taking. It's for your own, and society's good, after all. Freedom is frought with risks. It is attractive for many to give up freedoms for safety. And all you need is confidence that the fedgov knows what's best for you and will always do that best.
If my next-door neighbor buys an assault rifle, I feel like my kids are in a little bit of danger, and it wasn't any of my choosing.
Generally, when one feels his neighbor is a little, or a lot, "off," one feels like his kids are in a little bit, or more, of danger. And your neighbors "offness" is not of your choosing. You might be more concerned with your neighbor's mental stability and character than what he owns. And if you choose to remain next door to him, you might want to arm yourself, in your best way of choice, to protect your kids.
Apples and oranges, no?
Are you in a little bit of danger if he owns any other gun? Is it only the assault rifle that puts your kids in danger?
You have me convinced that thy hype around this argument is likely not proportional to the intended benefit. But banning assault rifles is not the same thing as banning skydiving. If the only people that got hurt with assault rifles were the people that choose to own them, I would not have started this thread. These weapons put people at risk (how much risk is debatable) who did not ask to become part of the situation.
|