>I do like the idea of not limiting a person rights and only holding those who commit crimes accountable. As a society we have to decide what risks we willing to take to protect indvidual rights. At some point we decide something have too much risk that outways personal freedom. The cost to me of limiting guns is very small because they are not a hobby of mine. The same goes for drugs, not my hobby but I prefer not to regulate others just because some people may misuse them.

Ah, I see libertarianism creeping about. I think we have to have some limits on things like guns and drugs, but not have a wide open society. Drugs have been very destructive in our society and if we ever really do have a drug war, we should try to win it. If I were president, I would give the drug producing countries 30 days to clean up their act. After that, I would defoliate them if they continued to send their poison here. (I know, I can hear the libs screaming - take a number and get in line - that's just the way I feel about it).



>
>
>
>>>Do you support limits on what sort of weapons people should be allowed to have? If it is the person, not the gun to blame I would think you could apply that logic to many other things more heavily regulated than guns are.
>>>
>>>
>>
>>You can stretch the logic to anything. That would make you the ultimate libertarian. I'm not in favor of individuals owning a L.A.W.S. rocket launcher, or such. However, I don't mind if a person owns an AR-15. Make me King and I'll adjudicate all this!