Patrick Elliott wrote:
> But, I have always found it a bit silly that "bare arms" only 
> means guns, with the result that martial arts weapons **are** banned. 

It doesn't, really. That's just how it gets read, because folks who think 
it's the weapons that are bad instead of the criminals manage to ban the 
ones that most people don't care about.

In Switzerland, they generally have their military gear, including tanks and 
cannons and such, available all the time.  Or at least so I have heard.

> But, seriously, if you limit what people can get hold of, you can also 
> limit what the government officials need.

Part of the problem is that "making it illegal to have X" doesn't really 
limit what you can get ahold of. It's already illegal to have a large 
container of explosives in a rented van, but we saw how well that worked out.

> At what point do you stop? Or, more to the point, at what point do you 
> bloody stop and think, "Heh, you know.. it might just be a good idea of 
> this *never* hits the market for the average person." Somehow, these 
> things never get thought of until *after* something happens.

OK. Consider Mexico. It's not like their aren't criminal gangs running 
around with tanks and planes of their own.

I'm not saying everyone needs nuclear railguns. We already have a bunch of 
things that never hit the market for the average person. Hand guns, however, 
are not them.  Indeed, it's that whole "never hit the market for the average 
person" that a few posts ago you were arguing were the reason that guns 
would be useless in a revolution to start with.

-- 
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
  "How did he die?"   "He got shot in the hand."
     "That was fatal?"
          "He was holding a live grenade at the time."

Post a reply to this message