Quote:
Originally Posted by Jazuela
No, the constitution doesn't explicitly allow semi-automatic firearms. It allows firearms, as a generic term. The government has the right, and the responsibility to determine which firearms are permitted and which are not. That is why AK-47s are not permitted to be bought or carried by civilians. AR-15 should be returned to the same category. It was in that category, and it was removed from it. And now, the *majority* of mass shootings in this country over the past few years have been commited using the AR-15.
They need to be made harder to acquire. They can't be made impossible to acquire, because there is always an illegal way around anything these days. A single mass shooting prevented by a difficult acquisition process, is lives saved.
|
I think your arguement is falling on deaf ears.
Those who differ with you have never seen a good friend have his head blown off right in front of him, or held folks with holes in their chest as they died. I have and since that.....wonder why ANYONE would want these weapons in their hands or allow strangers to have them.
I get the ammendment, and as someone who also worked in government, I respect our constitution and totally law and order.
I am also a realist who understand the cries to allow guns. I get it, but the argument is driven by those who the same folks who decry them meaning special interests.
When in government I learned NOTHING beats discussion and listening. Today we have neither.....either IN government or private citizens.
What you suggest would be thought of a a loss, not a compromise,....and would not serve the country or it citizens but "somebody"
If anyone has served and knows of what I speak.....but disagrees on another principal I do understand and hope nothing I said is offensive