Replies

Since I place full-auto armaments in the light-regulation category, in Laz's world, you would be able to get such weaponry by undergoing a 5 minute criminal and mental background check.

But what would stop the CRIMINALS from posessing anything more significant? Let's face it - criminals want victims, the more defenseless the better. Statistically it has been proven time and time again that tighter regulations on weapons increases the rate of crime, and that removing those restrictions decreases crime - especially concealed carry legislation. The criminals can't be sure that everyone is not packing.

Even though I posess a CCW, when I carry, I almost always carry open. I'm not out to plug somebody, I just want to be left alone. If the sight of a large .45 on the hip doesn't deter them, not much would. The same goes for indiscriminate weapons - the law is not going to deter the criminal, but the possibility of retaliation will.

Which begs the final point. It's not a question of equalization, it's about the rights of NON-criminals. If faced with 1 assailant, 10 or 100, it's not a question of limiting my response, it's ending the threat.

I find little to disagree with, except this: criminals are not likely to possess nuclear weapons or employ biological agents or set land mines or use fuel-air bombs. Just doesn't make sense -- the valuables they are after would be destroyed in most cases. Therefore, criminals don't really enter into the discussion of limitation of weapons possession based on their ability to be discriminating.

Once again, this is all about the fact that the Second Amendment does not exist in a vaccuum: It exists within reality, and reality is that your your rights are bracketed by the need to avoid violating my rights.