I will agree that there are reasonable limits. That is why I used the word "superficial" since I was not getting into the nuances.
So what would be your rationale for reasonable limits? Is it because a tank has the capacity for mass slaughter, or a different reason?
As a slippery-slope counter example to the tank: maybe we should prohibit knives since they can be used as offensive weapons too!
Assuming that your agreement with reasonable limits stems from the fact that tanks, jets, bombs, etc have the potential for mass slaughter, than this is a false equivalency. It is an argument that I hear often from those that are pro-gun, but it really doesn't stand up to scrutiny.
So, assuming that we agree that it is reasonable to limit weapons capable of mass slaughter, then I guess we're on to deciding just how much killing power is acceptable in the hands of citizens. Any thoughts?
I don't have a problem with laws - for example - concerning environmental protection; where one can assert that those laws require that a person/company act (modify their behavior) in a certain manner to protect the environment. The intent of my comment was concerning laws such as
Mayor Bloomberg's soda ban that restrict your "
right" to eat what you want. One can make a similar assertions concerning marijuana and prostitution.
Every law modifies or restricts behavior. That's exactly their purpose.
It sounds to me like you're railing against laws that deal with so-called "victim-less" crimes. I'm all for legalizing pot and prostitution - those laws seem to be hold overs from earlier religious influence.
Other laws, such as a requirement to wear a safety belt when operating a motor vehicle are a bit trickier. I really don't care if someone chooses to wear their safety belt or not, but I think there has to be some sort of safeguard in place that prevents the taxpayer from having to pick up the tab for additional injuries that could have easily been prevented by the use of the safety belt.
Same type of deal with smoking. Smoking is terrible for your health, but you can still choose to do it. The problem is, smoking increases health problems, and eventually most people end up on a government-subsidized health plan (medicare, for example). Therefore the smoker costs the government (and thus tax payers) more money than the non-smoker.
This of course brings up the issue of allowing/forcing people to opt-out of government-subsidized healthcare if they choose to continue these bad habits. That then runs into a doctor's oath to always treat a patient in need.
