Forum for discussing local and world politics and issues. All views are welcomed. Let your opinions be heard on current news and politics.
All standard guidelines apply to this board, No Flaming, No Taunting, No Foul Language,No sexual innuendos,etc..
As politics can be a volatile subject, please consider how you would feel if your comment were directed toward yourself.
Any post deemed to be in violation of guidelines will be deleted or edited without warning or notification. Any continued misbehavior will result in a ban or hidden status, so please play nice!!!
*"Moderators are here for a reason. If a moderator (or Global Moderator or Fencer) requests that a discussion on a certain subject to cease - for whatever reason - please respect these wishes. Failure to do so may result in being hidden, or banned."
> Hold the person accountable for their actions, not the means they chose to utilize
Then why restrict any weapons at all? We hold the person accountable, but not the automatic assault rifle, or the company that makes a profit manufacturing it, or the retailer that makes a profit selling it.
By your logic, people should be free to buy fully automatic machine guns. A person should be able to buy an Uzi at Walmart, then it is OK, because it is not the gun the problem, but the killer behind the gun.
Not only that, but a person should be able to buy dynamite freely, because it is not dynamite the problem, but the insane idiot who buys it.
If that is the case, a person should be able to buy a nuclear bomb. If a person blows up a city, it is not nuclear weapons the problem, but the insane idiots who use them.
So a person should be free to open a business and sell machine guns, explosives and even WMDs. The logic is that the problem is not the availability of weapons, but the people who use them.