You're not really getting the point here.
Why ban one, and not the other? Surely if you're not for banning all guns (which I acknowledge) one can't be unacceptable and the other is.
--By that ..'reasoning', (and I use the term loosely) , why not make the
M134 Minigun legal for civilians to own?
After all, it really doesn`t matter (according to you) that it offers a rate of fire of 2,000 to 6,000 round per minute, because, hey--people can kill people with pistols anyway, right?
So why not allow them a better killing weapon? ...We`ll just be careful about selling it !
So, let`s make the M134 Minigun available...
BUT...REMEMBER; let`s make
gosh-darn certain that ONLY the people who
SHOULD have one can get it, right?
After all --in your words--it would be "
Harmless in the hands of someone who should qualify to have the gun, really dangerous in the hands of someone who shouldn't."... Right??
Cause a gun is - a gun is - a gun...according to you, right?
Let`s just make gosh-darn-certain that ONLY the pure of heart and sane get a M134 Minigun...and everything will be FINE!
"
Why ban one and not the other"... right?
"
one can't be unacceptable and the other is." --PERIOD !
No further consideration required.
How simple.
How neat.
How tidy.
(How asinine.)
So...I`m the one "
not really getting the point here"....?
BWA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HAAA !
SAY!...Here`s an idea...In the midst of our freedom and acknowledgement of the need for and right of self defense...
Let`s just place a few limitations upon
how efficiently we can kill each other.
Just for that odd incident when someone gets into an indiscriminate killing mood.