Nor am I against the right to be armed. In Americas' early history, being a settler was a dangerous occupation, wildlife, bandits, opportunists, irate natives and isolation made for good reason to armed, and I can understand why it was written into the constitution.
The question I am asking is this-: Should a middle ground be sought over what type of weapon a person can arm themselves with to protect person and property?
Want DP delivered to your inbox daily? Subscribe here: