I was taught that the reason we have the right to bear arms was in case we, as a people, needed to revolt against our government, and this right enables us to do that while hopefully reminding the government not to become too authoritarian.

If we are to be able to overthrow our current government, with the weapons it possesses, then we should be able to own any type of arms we can get. Therefore, I see no reason to limit gun ownership to handguns and hunting rifles.



You may want to slap me, but the reasoning is sound. No gun fires itself. No knife stabs on its own. No rock hurls itself. The differnce in guns vs. other weapons is only in the amount of killing that can done with them in relation to time. That seems to me what really makes people upset--the massacre effect.

Yes, there should be limits on who can own guns. There are already laws about felons not being allowed, but they seem to get them a lot of the time anyway. I'm for other laws regarding psychological tests, but I'm not sure how effective they'll be. Still, they'd have to prohibit ownership to some degree for those who shouldn't own them, and that's a good thing.