Grave_n_idle wrote:What is interesting about your post (apart from the ITG-ness) is that it's an admission that your position is not about 'rights', the Constitution, or whether or not it's even a good idea (like, for safety, etc) - but is entirely about selfish ideology.
I actually have more respect for that position than for most of the pseudo-reasons people dream up.
I'm willing to tolerate reasonable restrictions on certain types of firearms, but not outright bans on the ownership of certain weapons. Save for explosives and other weapons currently classified as destructive devices such as flamethrowers and RPGs.
This is with the understanding that most people who try to purchase a firearm which is heavily regulated will give up long before the entire process is completed, and the people who do complete that successfully generally won't ever use it for a crime; certainly not after all the time and expense involved in acquiring an NFA (class III) weapon.
If handguns are used more often in crimes, I wouldn't mind tighter restrictions on those firearms; instead of restrictions on the typical shotgun or hunting rifle.
I'd prefer that almost no firearms have to be explicitly banned, but some be more heavily restricted than others. I'd want it to be difficult but not impossible for the gun collector/enthusiast to legally own a particular type of firearm.
