In Reply: Neither gun control (or the second amendment) is an all or nothing proposition

In reply to the following comment at Enough With The Political Blame Game When Things Like The Giffords Shooting Happen! | Right Wing News, against some else who argued that ""This violent act was caused because this individual had access to a firearm." While the commenter below chose to focus on "access to a firearm" portion, I'm more interested in the "this individual" part of the argument:

"And b/c muslims have access to bombs and airplanes, they kill people."
---

So, are you arguing that terrorists (the folks you call muslims) should therefore have access to bombs and airplanes, the way madmen here seem to have access to guns? Or might it be prudent to restrict some items from some people, so that they cannot use them to commit bad acts...

Gun control (or for that matter, the second amendment) isn't an all or nothing proposition. Some arms should be available; some shouldn't. Some people should be permitted to have them; some shouldn't. Once we agree that terrorists and madmen should not have access to rocket launchers, no matter what the second amendment says (are they not arms?), all that's left is to argue about who should/should not be permitted to have arms, and what arms they should/should not be permitted to have.

To suggest that there can be no restriction whatsoever, either in who can legally own arms, or what arms a person can legally own, is a pretty extreme position. (And yes, suggesting that no one can legally own any weapon is pretty extreme, as well.)
---

Posted 1/10/11, 12:10 PM