Some mentioned the other one was old. Heres a two-day old article on the same issue.

  • @PizzaMan@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    210 months ago

    the qualifier I had sought to relay was that arms aught to have a pragmatic use in either self or common defense.

    So then as long as it is “pragmatic” and can be carried, we have a right to own it regardless of the danger involved?

    • @FireTower@lemmy.world
      cake
      link
      fedilink
      110 months ago

      Yes and by doing so the onus falls upon you to become educated in it’s safe handling, proficient in it’s operations, and maintenance. Along with displaying acumen in your employment or lack there of with it.

      • @PizzaMan@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        210 months ago

        Then you have an unrealistic and terrible definition of what arms are. Citizens should not have the ability to mow down an entire crowd of people because their M134 was deemed “pragmatic”.

        • @FireTower@lemmy.world
          cake
          link
          fedilink
          010 months ago

          You say citizens shouldn’t have the ability, I’d say citizens shouldn’t have the motivation. And there I suppose is where we differ.

          Those types of intentional acts are the culmination of means and motive. There exists pragmatic reasons for one to have a means of offense, but no pragmatic reason to accept a world where a motive for such an offense could preside.

          I would suggest that the cure to that ailment is addressing wealth disparity and the ways technology has driven our country further apart now more than ever.

          A nation where martial might resided largely in a people’s milita rather than a government’s army wouldn’t be engaged in eternal foreign warfare as a means of justifying the existence of the military industrial complex but rather acting as a deterrent against invasion.

          But thank you for at least humoring my perspective.