From: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com [mailto:fairfieldl...@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of shempmcgurk Sent: Saturday, August 08, 2009 11:34 AM To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: "Women at Risk" Herbert obviously has a gun-control agenda and that's all very well and good. But, hey, Timothy McVeigh had a great hatred for the U.S. Government and he didn't use ANY guns in expressing that hatred....all he needed was some fertilizer...and hundreds died.
Guns are really beside the point. Where do you draw the line, Shemp? Automatic weapons? Assault rifles? Bazookas? Suitcase nukes? The more powerful the weapon, the easier it is to kill lots of people with it. Laws are meant to restrict individual liberties to the extent necessary to prevent harm to other individuals. By that definition, gun laws are too lax. I assume it's illegal to buy all the components McVeigh used to build his bomb, or at least it's necessary to show proof of why you need to buy them, such as blasting caps. Would you agree that certain weapons should be unobtainable, and/or that ownership of any weapon should require registration at least as onerous as a driver's license?
