Guns, who should be able to own them? Options

[*NatiMarie*]

We all know that guns can cause harm, they're everywhere darnit!

Primarily, who can own them? Who shouldn't own them?

[ComradeRed]

Yes, but couldnt we have avoided that whole Columbine incident simply by banning or greatly restricting guns? I mean.. seriously.. they didnt just take their father's handguns or anything, they had automatic assault weapons.. do we as civilians seriously need those to protect ourselves?

We should have every SIDEARM available to the military, as well as government secret-police agencies like the BATF and the DEA, which are MUCH bigger threats than the military is to us.

When we made the Second Amendment, ALL guns were assault weapons.

I'll admit, back when we passed the second amendment, guns could fire three rounds a minute. Today, they can fire three hundred rounds a minute. To say that this is a reason to abolish them is comparable to saying: "Back when we passed the first amendment, a printing press could print three pages a minute. Today, the New York Times can print three hundred thousand pages a minute (an even bigger gap). Therefore, we should abolish the New York Times."

"The Press is more dangerous than guns. We don't let our people have guns, why should we let them have press?"
--Lenin

Communist thinking is always backwards. Reverse that last statement: "The Press is more dangerous than guns. We let our people have the Press, why should we not let them have guns?"