(March 22, 2014 at 7:47 pm)Rahul Wrote:(March 22, 2014 at 7:23 pm)Bad Writer Wrote: @Rahul, it seems that the SAFE act was a ban against certain types of guns. I'm curious as to why. Are you for ownership of any type of weapon, or do you think it's smarter to outlaw, perhaps, the more devastating kinds? This seems to be what the SAFE act was geared towards, which would also suggest why the city thought a registry was necessary. Besides the typical "they took his guns!" response, do you have any other thoughts concerning this measure?
I'm loathe to grant the government the right to place any more restrictions on us. No matter what it is that the particular restriction is for.
My grandfather was 1 of 7 boys. They all died pretty young. The oldest surviving and last of them was gunned down in church by a pretty vocal atheist in the community with a M16 when I was a little kid.
He killed a little girl too that day in that church along with several other people.
First funeral I ever attended.
Would he have maybe killed fewer individuals if he was restricted to a hunting rifle? Probably.
I'm sure the government would love to protect us by taking away our rights to possess certain types of weapons. I just don't trust our government all that much.
I hear ya. I totally think that our law-abiding citizens should always have the option of owning a firearm in order to make themselves and their families feel safer; I believe that's the entire point of the second amendment, and it's damn good logic.
I'm really sorry to hear about what that person did with the M16, and that he was an atheist, no less. I'm surprised that fact didn't deter you from getting away from religion.
So by government, do you mean just on the federal level, or state level too?