"Han" wrote in message
...
Dave Balderstone wrote in
news:140620091728347964%dave@N_O_T_T_H_I_Sbalderst one.ca:

Who, in your opinion, should be allowed to decide whether or not a
legally available item should be in the possession of any particular
individual?

As a further exercise, what legally available items should be in that
decision tree?

I never said it would be easy to decide where the dividing line should be.
To me it is common sense that should dictate it. Go see Gran Torino, and
decide who should or should not have had weapons. To me it seems easy. I
for one should not have dangerous stuff, because I'm a hot head. And
because the only experience with "fire weapons" that I had was at a
carnival when I was 16.


Just watched Grand Torino about 1 hour ago. If the police did not have so
many ridiculous protectionism laws to have to tip toe through to keep from
violating a murderers rights perhaps they could work on the real problems
more efficiently. Perhaps if we ere not becoming so defenseless there would
not be so much crime. Trying to protect the public from itself results in
more crime.

If you remember in the movie, Clint Eastwood was not killed until he was
defenseless, when he carried a gun he was on more equal ground.