All that verbiage and not the classic "If you outlaw guns, only outlaws will have guns" or "He that keeps not his arms in times of peace will have none in times of war"
"The supposed purpose of outlawing guns (for everyone but certain privileged members of the government) is to take them out of the hands of those that would use them to murder, steal, rape, or perform other forms of coercion with them.
However, the problem is that people who would use guns to murder, steal, rape, or perform other forms of coercion tend not obey any government law (including the outlawing of guns), and end up keeping the guns they have, and purchasing guns whenever choose to (regardless of the outlawing of guns).
The net result is that only the people who would use guns to defend themselves and those they care about have their guns taken away, leaving them defenseless.
Thus, instead of outlawing guns making "good" people safer, outlawing guns makes "good" people unsafe and tends to increase the amount of murder, steal, rape, and other forms of coercion ... since these "good" people no longer have a way to defend themselves. And there is no longer a threat, of getting shot, to these people who would murder, steal, rape, or perform other forms of coercion."
I think this firearm is totally retarded, but I see zero reason why I should not be able to purchase and possess all the firearms I want.
Over a decades experience handling military weapons/firearms, I like to shoot, not people, targets. A good explosion is always fun as well.
Like so many things, the few ruin it for the many. But for arguments sake how about those countries like Switzerland where every adult male up to the age of 34 has military training and an assault rifle in their house? Or Israel where both sexes get in on the fun, walking around off duty with M-16's during training in civilian clothes with several 30 round, full mags? Don't hear of Columbine's there.
