tschandler
Rookie
Posts: 199
|
 |
« on: July 02, 2015, 02:29:51 AM » |
|
|
« edited: July 02, 2015, 02:59:59 AM by tschandler »
|
Obviously, I have come to realize this site is populated by leftists, but how can anyone call themselves "liberal" and believe only the government can have a monopoly on the use of force?
I would suggest that what an average citizen is allowed definitely has a utility argument but not one to be determined by government. See how "common sense" gun laws passed in New York state made many legal guns illegal simply because of their magazines. As far as a utility argument, the private citizen should carry anything the police carry - semi-automatic rifles, semi-automatic hand guns, even non lethel chemical suppressants (more pepper spray than tear gas but you get the general idea). As far as utility, these things all have purposes. A semi-automatic fires one bullet per trigger pull. There is no need for full auto because it is a useless feature for self defense. Full auto even in military circles is primarily for crowd suppression/sweeps. It barely has practical use in the military (some think the Army's eventual replacement for the M4 won't even do full auto)
Semi-automatic rifles are also great hunting rifles. My deer rifle is a semi-automatic in 30-06. Semi-automatic pistols have utility as a self defense weapon. My sister is living alone in another city across state lines. She carries a .380 semi auto. Guns are the great equalizer. So yes gun laws have to respect the useful utility of peaceful citizens.
In closing, I propose two questions. To restate my original question, do you believe government should have a monopoly on the use of force especially deadly force? And in the nature of compromise, accept the same regulations on voting that you would on gun ownership?
|
