Ruggles, you said:
"So fully armed terrorist flown Apaches going toe to toe with USMC Super Cobras over Boston harbor seems like a OK ideal to you. I mean the Jarheads would win of course but if few hundred citizens were killed in the crossfire so be it? I mean if Ted Kennedy went down I think most of us would be OK with that but barring him I really do not see this as a OK thing."
I appreciate the jab at ol' Ted-Head
However, I think this illustrates what I see as the hitch in your logic. When you mention a "fully armed terrorist" you are presuming criminal intent, which is precisely why you are advocating a
prior restraint on the right to own said helicopter.
The point is that the only reason we believe in and value liberty is because we operate on the belief that the vast majority of people are, by nature, "good". If this weren't the case/belief, a system of ordered liberty would be far less desirable than a highly-regulated authoritatrian state.
The argument for regulating access to arms is that people will choose to do evil with them. Some, undoubtedly, will. However, such individuals are in the minority, and if they possess such raw, evil intent, regulation will do little to deter them. I mean, is a man who is already planning a murder or armed robbery going to be prevented from carrying this out because the penalty for him fraudulently or illegallly acquiring a weapon is suddenly an effective deterrent?
When we give the government the power to start presuming guilt or criminal intent on the part of private citizens, we undermine the whole argument/reason for liberty in the process, and invite it to regulate every facet of our lives with prior restraints on our behavior - just to see to it that those of us who were always going to "beahve" continue to do so.
The trade-off, in terms of individual liberty, is not worth the illusion of additional safety.
