Nope. I don't. But they are handy and convenient and of the hundreds of millions of them out there, only a few have been used for criminal activities.
The argument basically boils down to, since I don't 'need' them, the Gov't can ban them.
Outside of the fact that a large percentage of people proposing said ban have absolutely no f*cking clue what they're talking about, do we really want to go further down that road?
We already have state and local governments determining what kinds of food we don't 'need'. What else do they feel the gov't should determine we 'need' or 'don't need'?
In reality though, it has nothing to do w/ 'need'. They just can't be honest enough to admit they don't WANT us to have firearms. Of any kind.
4 comments:
"...to those according to need."
I don't need a large capacity magazine, I don't NEED a gun.
But there are circumstances that are fairly common where I might need BOTH.
The moment that need arrives I won't be afforded the chance to acquire those things. My only option is to acquire them now just in case.
Like Saysuncle says, "NEED has nothing to do with it."
MY LIFE IS WORTH MORE THAN TEN ROUNDS!
How's that for a battle cry?
Post a Comment