Internetworkers: http://www.ibiblio.org/internetworkers/

["Shea Tisdale" <shea AT sheatisdale.com>]

Michael Czeiszperger wrote:
> On the contrary, I'm trying to establish a common goal from which to
> work out a compromise.

I don't think we have a common goal on this.  I seek to expand the rights of
citizens to own firearms and use them in lawful manners.  And I believe you
seek to restrict the rights of citizens to own them.  Am I not correct?

> If you believe that some weapons (like a rocket-propelled grenade
> launcher) are too dangerous for the general population then we have a
> point of agreement to work from. The next step is only to establish
> *how dangerous* a weapon has to be before it should be illegal.

I support ownership of firearms and such that can be used for personal
defense, hunting and sporting uses such as target shooting, etc.  So you
could say that I'm fine with people owning hand guns, rifles, shotguns,
semi-automatic firearms, so-called assault weapons, and even fully automatic
weapons with proper registration.  I also support people being able to own
non-lethal weaponry which is currently outlawed from private ownership, such
as tasers and stun guns.  

However the *how dangerous* argument is not really something I can get
behind for use in attempting to determine whether something should be
illegal or not in our current society.  Automobiles for instance are far
more dangerous than guns and no one would argue that they should be outlawed
and as it stands we let 16 years old operate them with little to no
supervision on a daily basis.