rpenmanparker
Member
- Joined
- Mar 6, 2018
- Messages
- 2,456
I understand the slippery slope argument. However, I have to think that even the most rabid gun ownership advocates must see some unavoidable limits to what weapons can be owned by civilians. Where would you place that limit?
Let's discuss.
I'll go first. Thermonuclear devices. Does anyone think that civilians should be able to acquire thermonuclear devices?
Now I challenge you all to name another reasonable limit, something not as drastic as hydrogen bombs, but clearly above the level where you think there is a bright red line that marks what civilians ought to be able to own. The purpose of the discussion is to try to work our way down to a reasonable level that doesn't materially infringe on our rights, but also doesn't pose a clear and present danger to our society.
Let's discuss.
I'll go first. Thermonuclear devices. Does anyone think that civilians should be able to acquire thermonuclear devices?
Now I challenge you all to name another reasonable limit, something not as drastic as hydrogen bombs, but clearly above the level where you think there is a bright red line that marks what civilians ought to be able to own. The purpose of the discussion is to try to work our way down to a reasonable level that doesn't materially infringe on our rights, but also doesn't pose a clear and present danger to our society.