By not restricting ownership, the government is being negligent/reckless. Should I give a three year old matches and tell them fires are bad, don't set them? When the child burns the house down, who is at fault?
And what do you mean by necessary tool?
Are you kidding me? No one mentioned arming 3 year olds. This is a strawman argument and I'm not biting. Regardless, we have a pretty clearly worded Constitution that says SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED.
Trying to regulate actions by regulating ownership is foolhardy at best, and shows a marked distrust of it's citizens and negligence by the government. For every person injured or killed by an assailant because said person did not have legal access to the NECESSARY TOOLS of self defense, the lawmakers who passed the laws should be charged and tried right along side the assailant. 1000 years ago the necessary tools were broadswords and bows. Firearms level the playing field, and their prevalence today makes them NECESARY for self defense (no one wants to use a kitchen knife to resist an assailant armed with a gun).
We are a society that, at least according to our Constitution, says we are all equal. Guns are what make us that way. Denying a gun to anyone who wants one is telling that person that they are not 'important', or 'good', or 'white' enough (pick any adjective you like there, I threw the white part in to point out how unfair regulation can be) to be allowed to defend themselves.
Quote:
All those psychotic people should not USE GUNS ILLEGALLY, I really don't see the harm in OWNING an inanimate object.
Of course there is no harm in owning something. The harm can possibly come from using it. Ownership without use is pretty pointless. It's also difficult to regulate use once it is in someone's possession. Would you leave your eight year old daughter in the care of a child molester, telling them, "Don't molest her. I'll pick her up in a few hours."???
To be clear, I'm not saying people who see therapists should automatically be banned from owning guns. However, if you're threatening to kill people because the dog, the voices, or your dead mother told you to, then yeah, no more guns for you.
Another strawman argument with the child molester. We live in a society where people are not (supposed to be) oppressed for what they *MIGHT* do. I've seen complete plans online showing how to construct low yield nuclear devices...does that mean I should be locked up because I have an engineering degree and might just build one? No.
All of these nutjobs would be scary with guns, but we have a CONSTITUTION that pretty clearly states that they have a right to them. Given the fact that the government is not responsible for your personal safety, it should have no interest in limiting how you ensure it. If you are really that worried about these nuts with guns, do what I do, and carry a gun of your own all the time. Yeah, it's uncomfortable, but it puts my mind at ease WITHOUT INFRINGING ON YOUR RIGHTS.
The regulations you want would most definately infinge on SOMEONE's rights, and what's worse, probably wouldn't prevent a single crazy person from doing whatever they're going to do. Knives and hammers are pretty good at harming people too, hell, you can't even run out of ammunition, yet no one wants to ban these...yet. A crazy person with a gallon of diesel and a match is more dangerous than one with a gun, but no one's gonna ban them from the pumps. All your bliss ninny regulations accomplish is giving you sheeple a false sense of security. ANY form of regulation is an infingment, and Constitutionaly invalid on its face.