Thank you, Quazi!
Thank you, Quazi!
And yes, people who misuse them (called criminals) are much more likely to assault a fellow citizen than a large government. Pretty much makes sense.
"God is the name by which I designate all things which cross my path violently and recklessly, all things which alter my plans and intentions, and change the course of my life, for better or for worse."
-C G Jung
To quote VP Biden, "As the president said, if you're actions result in only saving one life, they're worth taking. But I'm convinced we can affect the well-being of millions of americans and take thousands of people out of harm's way if we act responsibly."
I suspect that banning alcohol, is also on his EO agenda.
I was discovering that life just simply isn't fair and bask in the unsung glory of knowing that each obstacle overcome along the way only adds to the satisfaction in the end. Nothing great, after all, was ever accomplished by anyone sulking in his or her misery.
This isn't drug dealers or bangers shooting each other, this was 20 1st graders gunned down.
No the 'cons' disgusting acts are to call those truly outraged, saddened and wondering if it could happen to their own kids, whores.
I mean, if you need a gun because someone else might have a gun, then that could really be making a case for limiting the number of guns in society, not increasing them. Yes criminals will gain access to them anyway, but it follows logically that destroying as many guns as possible would limit their supply even to criminals. (I am pro-second amendment but I'm just playing devil's advocate here.)
We should instead continue the argument that guns are necessary for a healthy democracy to exercise proper control over government when necessary. Saying that you need a gun because of potential home invaders is just inviting nanny government to come up with more controlling solutions.