What I don't get is double standards. There are responsible, productive, well-adjusted users of marijuana, but that's illegal. So why can't the manufacture, sale, or possession of a handgun be illegal? Really, there is no practical use for a handgun, other than "protection," which boils down to murder in self-defense if ever used. The Constitution was built to be amended. If the phrase "the right to bear arms" is directly tied to x deaths a year, then don't we as a country have a responsibility to change that?
I don't know, it's late, and I have a tendency to simplify things to my version of common sense, but it seems to me that if we already assert the right to limit the types of guns purchasable (i.e. automatic weapons are illegal), then why can't we make the decision to outlaw, phase out, and reduce the devastating effect of handguns?
You'll all receive a check in the mail soon for exactly $.02.posted by Awol at 2:15 AM on May 27, 2000
« Older Internet Explorer too hard for you? Confused by al... | Sweet mother of...... Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
Buy a Shirt