Welcome to Current TV
Can responsible people keep guns and still avoid tragedy?
To my friends who say, "there are poor folk who hunt to feed their families, and they need their guns." I say, "fine. Let them keep those kind of killing machines."
To those who say, "but cars kill people too, should we ban cars?" I say, "no, cars are mainly designed for getting people from point A to point B. Let them keep those kind of killing machines."
To those who say, "the 2nd amendment gives me the right to bear arms." I say, "it also says 'well regulated.' And it leaves open wide the discussion about which killing machines."
To those who rattle off the court cases upholding the 2nd amendment, there's obviously no amount of killing that will change your mind. But…. Back in 1791, they didn't have all these kind of killing machines.
I think most folks would say it's fair to keep whatever you want in your own house to protect yourself and your family. I understand that the fear from the gun-lobby is that once you start rolling back any rights, eventually they'll all be rolled back. But honestly, where do you draw the line?
We can squabble about knives and forks, or even wood-chippers. They can all be killing machines. But, should I be able to walk down the street with a nuclear warhead strapped to my back, because it is my 2nd amendment right to do so? The argument that "guns don't kill people, people kill people," doesn't diminish the argument that maybe we shouldn't make it so easy to kill so many people...
After all, if I were to Facebook or twitter my intention to go out Bambi-hunting with a nuke on my back this afternoon, we all know that Bambi wouldn't stand a chance. And I'd quickly find myself in jail, or blown up alongside Bambi. My question then becomes, is it so wrong to have a mental wellness screening for those who wish to possess assault weapons? Where do you draw the line?
more from Community:
from the community