Sorry to go off on a rant there. I wasn't intending to sound like one of the extremist NRA zealots.
My point was more focusing on the "need" portion of what you're saying, and providing counter-examples of other things covered by our rights to freedom of speech, expression, association, etc. that have come under fire from similar lines of reasoning.
Stuff like this is not about need. Framing the discussion as, "why do we need this?" is exactly how shit like the whole "sporting purpose" clause got into the GCA '68.
So, for me it's more an issue of realizing that's the beginning of the slippery slope, and suggesting a rephrasing of the statement from "this should not exist," or "people shouldn't be allowed to own these," and turning it into, "It might be cool for someone else, but it's not really for me."
After all, stuff like Naked Lunch, Catcher in the Rye, Mappelthorpe's work, and this firearm design, and everything else doesn't appeal to everyone, but why should that stop it from existing or reaching the audience who does want it?
(no subject)
Date: 2010-02-24 05:08 am (UTC)My point was more focusing on the "need" portion of what you're saying, and providing counter-examples of other things covered by our rights to freedom of speech, expression, association, etc. that have come under fire from similar lines of reasoning.
Stuff like this is not about need. Framing the discussion as, "why do we need this?" is exactly how shit like the whole "sporting purpose" clause got into the GCA '68.
So, for me it's more an issue of realizing that's the beginning of the slippery slope, and suggesting a rephrasing of the statement from "this should not exist," or "people shouldn't be allowed to own these," and turning it into, "It might be cool for someone else, but it's not really for me."
After all, stuff like Naked Lunch, Catcher in the Rye, Mappelthorpe's work, and this firearm design, and everything else doesn't appeal to everyone, but why should that stop it from existing or reaching the audience who does want it?