Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 1/7/2016 3:31 PM, wrote:
On Thursday, January 7, 2016 at 11:41:20 AM UTC-5, Mr. Luddite wrote:
Or, will John's guns end up in the millions of readily
available guns with no record of where they came from?
Until (if) that gun is used to commit a crime, why does it matter? And
when (if) it is used to commit a crime, then the person using it is the
one that deserves punishment.
If all it's ever used for is to shoot paper targets and squirrels, it's
none of their business.
I see a gun as having a connotation to it that other potential weapons
don't have. A knife, a bow and arrow or club doesn't have the same
reputation that a gun has. Doesn't mean they are used exclusively for
killing but basically, that's what they are for, be it a squirrel or a
person. For that reason I feel they should have more attention paid to
who can buy or acquire one.
The rulers have always tried to have arms control laws. Hitler even
bragged his was the first truly disarmed country. Go back to the Middle
Ages. Crossbows were banned from the peons. Because a crossbow bolt could
penetrate armor. Old England required the lords and barons, etc. to be
able to supply armed men to the king. Did not require the man to be armed
when not being conscripted.