Originally Posted by BroncoInferno
You're missing the point. I assume most people are sane and don't want a nuclear weapon. The problem is, if you agree that there are "arms" that a citizen should not pocess, then you are implicitly agreeing that there is a debate to be had about where to draw the line. But the NRA gun nuts only want to complain about attempts at gun control...they will by and large side-step the issue of where to draw that line. What should the applied standard be when determining whether or not a citizen should be able to possess a particular weapon? Ant was blistering houghtam for his suggestions, but I'm curious to know where he would personally draw the line, and on what basis.
I disagree because we have tons of gun laws already. Not like it hasn't been debated over and over. You could say same thing about dems refusing to cut the budget to raise debt limit. Earlier they were bargaining so does that imply they already agreed cuts were needed?