First of all I did not say that weapons "are harmful only if evil people use them", I said that weapons are inanimate objects and do not possess free will. That's quite a reach you made of what I said. My original point was if you had a basement full of dynamite and didn't use it (being the nice guy that you no doubt are) no one would know but you, so who cares what you are sitting on?
Likewise if every person (good or evil) had a basement full of "assault weapons" and nobody talked about them, who cares. If however you suspected your slightly creepy neighbor had something dangerous and he had the same idea about you would have reached a sort of MAD which worked perfectly for scores of years and kept the peace in an unstable world. My position is that what I have in my basement is my business and none of yours. I couldn;t care less about what you have in yours...
Regards,
GtG
PS If you really want to cause a lot of damage to a lot of people just clog the storm drains of the underpass on a rainy night, you still don't need dynamite. You keep asking for outside help, if you put your mind to it you are capable of creating disasters of biblical proportions with nothing but a fertile imagination.
RE: First of all I did not say that weapons “are harmful only if evil people use them”, I said that weapons are inanimate objects and do not possess free will.
I see no contradiction between saying: “weapons are inanimate objects and do not possess free will.”, and saying: “Weapons are harmful only if evil people use them”. Inanimate objects cause harm ONLY when evil people use them.
In fact BOTH ARE STATEMENTS OF FACT. And oh, I did not say that you said it, I am only making a logical extension of the statement: “weapons are inanimate objects”.
RE: My original point was if you had a basement full of dynamite and didn’t use it (being the nice guy that you no doubt are) no one would know but you, so who cares what you are sitting on?
My main concern is POSSESSION and PURCHASE of dynamite.
Isn’t it a violation of the second amendment to restrict its possession and purchase? Isn’t it a form of “bearing arms”?
To be consistent, if we should be allowed to use semi-automatics because the second amendment guarantees us this, I see no reason why the second amendment should limit the idea of “bearing arms” ONLY to semi-autos and lower forms of weapons.
The term “arms” is a broad category and would include other forms of arms such as -— Bazookas, Automatics and Dynamites.
RE: If you really want to cause a lot of damage to a lot of people just clog the storm drains of the underpass on a rainy night, you still don’t need dynamite.
I agree, but why stop at clogging, why not make it spectacular and use dynamite? And more importantly, why is purchasing dynamite as a law abiding citizen heavily controlled ( dare I say illegal )?