Quote:
Originally Posted by AerostarMonk
See, but I still think there's a huge difference. We both know not all pit bulls are bred solely as weapons in fact most of them aren't. There are bred to be the companions and oftentimes protectors of families individuals. Someone being denied the companionship of a wonderful dog is a lot worse than someone being denied ownership of a semi-automatic weapon.
I'm not advocating for a gun-free world, it's just that some of the guns being argued for are just uneccessary. I'm not going to name any because, really I'm nowhere near as educated in the subject as say, Partymember. But even to us "morons" there are some guns that do seem a little, well, overkill.
All law-abiding citizens who so choose, by right should be allowed to carry a firearm. So don't put me down as one alarmist crybaby. But still this right is far and away from a dog. A dog is a friend. A dog you can love. A dog you can grow up with, share your feelings with, and bring out certain emotions in people. A gun is just an inanimate object. So, yes I see your intention, I get the parallel, but it really seems like an apples and oranges deal.
Oh, man. I should've phrased this whole thing better. I'm apologizing in advance for anything that sounded harsh. I didn't mean to come off that way.
|
No appologies necessary. It does require some explaning.
Criminals will still have guns even when a law banning them is in place. Look at the cities. Gangs still roam the streets with full-auto machineguns, yet they're illegal. Since the criminals already have all the guns they need/want to commit crimes with, why not let the civilians have guns? I would feel much safer if i saw a full-auto AK-47 in the gun rack of every car. Much safer.
If a criminal is going to rob a house, rape the woman inside, then kill her, is he really going to not use a machinegun because that gun is illegal? Kind of silly to expect that, isn't it?