- The problem is that there are not enough guns in possession of the people. If every one had a gun, to defend themselves, there would be no massacres. The problem is that there is a historical record, in the U.S., which completely disproves this contention. In the newly acquired Western territories of the U.S., guns were ubiquitous and problems of violence were rampant. In many instances town or city marshals were appointed to temporarily confiscate all guns at the town or city line as being the only way to keep the peace. To my knowledge no case was ever brought before the Supreme Court to determine the constitutionality of the confiscations. Perhaps it was because there was no N.R.A., or rather judges, in those times, had a different concept of what a "Well regulated militia" meant. In any event, in the U.S., we have been there, done that.
- Gun regulations and laws will be ignored by criminals so it is futile to have them. It follows from that, since scofflaws will go through red lights, they should be abolished. Likewise, since many people commit traffic infractions, let's get rid of all traffic laws. Think how entertaining a trip to the supermarket will become with no traffic regulations.
- Stuff happens. There is no need to act rashly. What's the rush? Yes, mass murders are becoming more frequent but a few more deaths of our children are no reason to be stampeded into something that has been going on all these years.
Friday, October 2, 2015
ARGUMENTS AGAINST GUN CONTROL
As far as I can see there are three (3) basic arguments being made by anti gun control Republicans and the N.R.A: