What would be wrong with special firearms designed for civilian use?
There must be a reason why no one has suggested only allowing civilians to purchase rubber bullets for self defense? The biggest problem I see with it, is people being stupid and getting friends to shoot them for youtube.
What opposition would you have with some kind of self defense civilian weapon that uses non-lethal ammunition or something? Like, a gun that just really hurts someone, instead of killing them?
Also, before you talk about the second amendment, google the 18th and 21 amendments, and the elastic clause... Muskets were the only arms people could bear (exaggeration). I'm sure the forefathers would agree, that people should not be allowed to have any weapon they wanted, and Congress is allowed to interpret in this way too.
Are you kidding? I'm not shooting him with BB pellets. He's still going to be seriousy injured, just no likely hood of dying. Police officers use guns like these for riot control
- Anonymous8 years agoFavorite Answer
You have to be a liberal to ask a question as stupid as that! Do liberals realize just how stupid their questions are, no I say they were not educated enough to understand that.
@ John J. S. I am sure you are a liberal to not be educated enough to understand what "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall NOT be INFRINGED.
- Steve NLv 78 years ago
Yes there is a reason is hasn't been suggested, SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED! Telling people they can only have rubber bullets sure sounds like infringement to me. Also the "civilians" aka law abiding citizens would be reduced to rubber bullets, while like all gun control wouldn't apply to criminals who had real ammo.
- Uncle PennybagsLv 78 years ago
Where is the deterrence value then?
If some criminal knows I'm shooting him with non-lethal ammo, that diminishes the deterrence value of me having a gun. This is no different than limiting a person to pepper spray.
- John J. SLv 78 years ago
Or we could outlaw everything except weapons firing .22cal shorts.