I find that the 2nd amendment is ridiculous to try and draw conclusions from its wording. It was written over 200 years ago. We now have killing machines that are more effective than science fiction a while back. Drawing the line seems more and more arbitrary and basically wrong. I could only rationally choose no guns or all guns, but I couldn't really support either. I'm torn.
I agree that trying to parse meaning from the document in this sense is ridiculous, but unfortunately it's as far as I know the most major law on the subject. I disagree that all or none are the only options - maybe I think that gun control (as a society) reflects how comfortable we are with access and types of weapons - a sort of collective morality. I don't think there's a breakdown of which guns are "moral" or "immoral" for me, and for most people, I'm guessing. It seems difficult to discern how much danger is posed to me as a non-gun owning member of society by the accessibility and type of guns available - and since it's likely a continuum, it will be hard to determine how to respond to that. I would hope to view things rationally, but I do think trying to minimize gun violence while keeping in mind people's rights to guns is a combination of rational thoughts - I don't think one needs to supersede the other.
I would hope to view things rationally, but I do think trying to minimize gun violence while keeping in mind people's rights to guns is a combination of rational thoughts - I don't think one needs to supersede the other.
This is pretty much my exact feelings. I like this a lot.