- Joined
- Aug 7, 2016
- Messages
- 6,613
- Reaction score
- 2,016
- Location
- Florida.
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Moderate
If your child is killed by a defective toy or a negligent gun shot, they're still dead.
So you're OK with banning toys that are dangerous to children...and that might kill one or two children a year because of say a potential choking hazard.
BUT you're not OK with banning something that kills over 10,000 people (including children) per year?
Can you really not see a double standard in banning dangerous toys and guns ?
I know what you're going to say at this point, would I ban kitchen knives and cars. And of course no I wouldn't because they're as safe as we can make them and no safer alternative is available for something that is needed.
Privately owned firearms are not needed.
Though you could make a special case for shotguns being used for vermin/pest control by farmers etc.
We've discussed this before, in order to ban guns you need to repeal the 2nd Amendment.
This requires another amendment to the Constitution so no, under these circumstances gun ownership would NOT be constitutionally protected.
Getting too close huh ?
Would you also like to see people who wish to ban potentially dangerous toys treated as pariahs ?
If no, why not ?
To answer the question about defective toys, the key word is "defective." In other words, something in the manufacturing process made it not work properly. A firearm is made for hunting, self defense, target practicing, and to deter a tyrannical government. If someone uses it in a crime or accidentally shoots someone, that is the fault of the user, not the manufacturer. Hammers are designed to pound nails, yet its also used to commit murder.