Who needs more than one gun a month?

@cripfemme (7698)
United States
January 16, 2013 9:01pm CST
I don't know why anyone would need to purchase more than one gun a month. However, apparently some firearms advocates are having trouble with this legislation proposed by President Obama. I don't think any rational person who is not up to no good or at least thinking about being up to no good would need to buy more than one gun. It seems obvious to me. The only possible exception is if you run a gun store in which case the legislation would not apply to you. Can anyone provide me with a reasonable argument as to why it is reasonable to buy more than one gun per month? I'm sure there can be exceptions for collectors. So, I don't even see that as an argument.
1 person likes this
3 responses
@dlr297 (5409)
• United States
18 Jan 13
Why should the Government or anyone else tell me what i can or can not buy. as long as it is not illegal. or how many of each item i can have. Because of the 2 Amendment i have the right to own, and buy as many as i want to own.
1 person likes this
@matersfish (6306)
• United States
17 Jan 13
Not sure. Why would anyone need a double cheeseburger instead of a single cheeseburger? Why would anyone need a garage full of cars? Why would anyone need a lot of things? Need has nothing to do with it. The issue is want. And if people want something, and if they're law-abiding, responsible citizens who are able to afford it, why do others need the authority to tell them they shouldn't have it? You're asking for a "reasonable" argument, but you basically disqualified everything preemptively.
1 person likes this
@debrakcarey (19887)
• United States
19 Jan 13
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed. Elsewhere the word unalienable is used to describe RIGHTS. Here's the definition of unalienable... Adj. 1. unalienable - incapable of being repudiated or transferred to another; "endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights" inalienable intrinsic, intrinsical - belonging to a thing by its very nature; "form was treated as something intrinsic, as the very essence of the thing"- John Dewey So, the right to LIFE (self defense being part of that), LIBERTY (being necessary to the security of a FREE STATE)and the PURSUIT OF HAPPINESS (ownership of property, which includes your money)...are by NATURE of BEING HUMAN, not to be infringed. Which means.... in·fringe (n-frnj) v. in·fringed, in·fring·ing, in·fring·es v.tr. 1. To transgress or exceed the limits of; violate: infringe a contract; infringe a patent. 2. Obsolete To defeat; invalidate. v.intr. To encroach on someone or something; engage in trespassing: an increased workload that infringed on his personal life. So there you have it. And IF we actually were governed by our Constitution and the Bill of Rights, REGULATION might just qualify as infringement...unless of course by due process (another guaranteed right) you had lost the rights (government must PROVE you are a criminal FIRST) that were yours as a result of you being a human being.