Wallabies you did an excellent job of misrepresenting what I said in an effort to improve your argument. What I said was:
Quote:
|
Things like automobiles would be limited in their power to weight ratio and speed limited such that they could not exceed the speed limit. As has been pointed out countless times automobiles kill far more than firearms and think of the gas that would be saved, you could get 60mpg out of your new 10 HP car.
|
There are few reason why automobiles need all 200+HP to drive down the road, or need to be able to do 120 MPH.
As I said there are plenty of legitimate reasons why limited HP and speed should could be enforced. The improvement in the road toll and the fuel savings would save many billions of dollars a year, not to mention the death and destruction.
My point was, as if you didn't understand. There are many things that people desire and want without any real "need".
Whenever this type of argument arises we always see the selfish views of those with no interest in the subject come to the surface. What is it called here in Australia? "I'm alright Jack"
In answer to your second comment about armouries, what do you call the 1.2 ton steel safe with (category 1) Chubb locks in my back shed, and the second hidden locked steel box elsewhere that contained all of my ammo and bolts to my weapons.
Of course the Forces keep their weapons in armouries because the weapons do not belong to the individual, they are the responsibility of the government, and so they lock them up as they do any "attractive" portable items.