Guns will protect you from tsunamis.

[MaggieL]

Originally Posted by yesman065

MaggieL - Why does anyone need a machine gun or an Uzi? - These are the types of guns I think are rediculous for regular citizens to own. They serve no purpose other than to kill humans. I will agree that this creates a very difficult situation where someone has to dide what is and/or isn't ok. If I had to choose one absolute or the other, I agree that there should be no ban, however our police are at times horribly outgunned.

Then the police need better guns, because criiminals won't follow your laws. That's why we call them criminals.

I won't buy into your prohibitionist line of "Prove to my satisfaction that you need ${x} or the government should take it away from you." That's lame. If you want to restrict my liberty, it's incumbent on you to prove an overwheleming justification for it, and "maybe there would be less violence, I think." doesn't cut it...especially when it's already demonstrated every day that someone who already intends to commit a crime won't be deterred by the fact that their weapon is illegal too.

We've been down all these paths before here over and over on the Cellar. It's always been the case here that a gun prohibitionist espousing a feel-good law that only prohibits weapons he doesn't own won't be convinced by arguments from principle...the principle being that once someone passes a law that firearms with characteristic ${x} (for example full-auto, standard magazine capacity, bayonet lugs, pistol grips have all been tried in the past) should be illegal, they're back in the next session looking to amend the law to expand the class of prohibited weapons because--quelle surprise!--the law was somehow completely ineffective in preventing crime. In fact full-auto weapons are almost never used in crime. They're expensive, and not terribly effective as criminal tools.

Go read http://www.clintongunban.com