Greetings @attorney4freedom.

Thank you for getting back to me. :c)

Persons who are willing to listen to each other are doomed to find similarities. I'd wager that even Donald Trump and Kim Jong Il would find a fair number of commonalities if they spent a week together on a neutral resort. So confident am I of the general truth of this that I'd even throw Pope Francis into the mix, though it may take up to two weeks for such a diverse trio to truly gel with their similarities. I digress however. ;c)

I personally feel that access to non-lethals and body armor should be a right while access to lethals should be a privilege similar to driving. Different licences provide access to progressively more advanced weapons. One covering shotguns and hunting rifles, one covering pistols and a couple more entering into the realm of automatic and heavy calibers. I also feel that heavier-handed non-lethals should also fall under a licence type.

If a person is licensed then yes, there is no legitimate reason to withold right to access lethals, although I do feel that anti-cache measures would be beneficial (does a person need 500 rounds of ammunition in a gun closet in the basement?).

The problem with that logic is that some genuinely believe that they need to be well-catered for offensively in case they need to defend against an ever more imposing government (and they might). So - yes... I've been trying to leave that aspect aside.

Oh... and a hammer can bludgeon and a screwdriver can skewer. Both would constitute abuses of the tools - not being aligned with their original purposes - which are themselves considered desirable.

A gun, on the other hand, is not abused when it is fired. It is doing precisely what it was designed for - and furthermore it is purpose not too unlike that of a nuke. You hope that you'll never use it - and even when you do use it the consequences echo well into the future.

Thank you again for the response. ^_^