quote:
Originally posted by kperk:
quote:
Originally posted by meanasasnake:
Sarcasm maybe but childish? If you've ever noticed, we live in a slippery-slope nation. First the take one thing from and then they come back again and again to take more and more. Probably 99% of Americans including me, don't own assault weapons. But mark my words, someday they will come for your trusty .357 and unfortunately there won't be a thing you can do about it.
I heard a local gun dealer say once that: "there are extremists on both sides of the gun issue." He is completely right. Automatic assault weapons are designed to kill large numbers of people. Their availablity should be limited to law enforcement and military. I find no reason to the argument for their availability.
Please give me another example of something comparable to this which would be demontrative of this "slippery slope" you mentioned above.
Smoking for one. I've never smoked but its interesting to watch the progression. At first you could smoke anywhere. Then you couldn't smoke in theaters, then indoor arenas, then outdoor areans, then restaurants. Now in some areas you can't smoke in your apartment and in some places you can't smoke in public places.
Then there is fatty foods. At first they just put out warnings about fatty foods. Then they made food producers reduce the fat content of their products (caring not that they took away the taste that made the food worth eating in the first place), then they said stop super-sizing meals and now they are helping people sue the fast food industry because somebody has a heart attack because they have no self-control and they over-eat. That's a couple for now. Besides, the extremists have already stated that their goal is to have a gun-free America. Wouldn't THAT be hell on earth for law-abiding people when they can no longer defend themselves. And one more thing. Suppose a few criminals (they rarely work alone these days) break into your home carrying assault rifles. Would you stand a better chance with an assault rifle of your own or a .357? I know its not something we like to think about but its true. The criminals will always be able to get their hands on any type guns they want and we would be at their mercy. We would be now if they weren't sure if you are waiting for them with a .357 or an assault rifle. The only thing that keeps them at bay is the fact that they don't want to get shot.[/QUOTE]
Smoking and bad eating habits are not Constitutionally protected behavior are they? Lol....Of course not. However, people are well within their rights to do both. Smoking in public places effects everyone in those places NOT just the person smoking, but everyone around them. Apartment owners can decide how to manage their properties. Many people prefer NOT to live in an apartment where a smoker has lived which places a great burden on the property owner. There are NO laws preventing smokers from living in apartment buildings. Such rules are established by the property owners. Same goes for used cars. Cars that have been smoked in re-sell for less.
Warning individuals about fatty foods and restricting fat content does NOT prevent people from eating fatty foods. Besides, these are not nation-wide laws.
I find it amusing that those of you rail against such efforts to restrict smoking in public and love the idea of fat people are the same ones complaining about skyrocketing healthcare costs. Lots of low income families eat at such places and have a high number of smokers. They have no insurance and when they develop heart disease or cancer they get free treatment. Your position is contrary to purpose.
Neither things you mention involve violent weapons designed for mass murder.
The extremists who would totally ban guns will not prevail. It just will not happen no matter the hysterical, overreaching arguments to the contrary. On the other hand, the extremists on the other side will not prevail either. Again, automatic assault weapons are not reasonable for personal protection. IF someone invades my home armed with automatic assault weapons, its over anyway. As you said, only about 1% of civilians own such weapons. The likelihood of such a thing happening to an average family is miniscule. It would be far more likely that the average family would lose a member to emphysema, heart-attack or cancer. The argument that banning automatic assault weapons availability will result in ALL guns being forceably taken away from the entire U.S. population is pure reactionary drivel.