Gun Culture
It is too easy to get guns in this country. There are too many guns in this country. If the government decided to suspend the constitution and take away our rights, an armed citizenry wouldn't matter, first of all because what the hell are we going to do against the might of the US Military, and second of all the ones with the guns wouldn't even notice and would support the government in their efforts.
I'm tired of trying to be diplomatic on the "gun issue." Let me state the following categorically and unequivocally:
I hate guns.
I hate the NRA.
I hate the imbeciles in this country who think you can't place any restrictions on guns.
I hate people who pray for the victims but think that tragedies like the one that occurred yesterday are acceptable and a necessary trade-off against any restriction on private ownership of guns.
I think the 2nd Amendment was about states having the right to organize armed militias and was never intended to guarantee that anyone and everyone who wants a gun should be able to just go buy one.
posted by The Viscount LaCarte at 7:18 AM
4 Comments:
While I don't have an issue with gun ownership as a general idea (I have fewer issues than I used to), I'm all for restrictions. I would also ban private ownership of certain weapons.
Your 2nd amendment rights do not extend to your right to shoot people. Clearly, as you point out, it's become far too easy to achieve that, should you want to.
Remember the outcry after John Lennon was murdered? Nobody else seems to...
I think if you have a gun you should be able to shoot anyone else who has a gun.
Simple and elegant.
I recommend "A Well Regulated Militia" by Paul Fussell, included in the collected essays in the intriguingly-titled Thank God for the Atom Bomb. Fussell maintains that gun ownership should be allowed- as long as the owners show up for scheduled drills, in uniform, and keep themselves available for callup at all times. Failure to attend would be cause for dismissal and revocation of rights of ownership. Of course I guess that a reductio ad absurdum argument only works on people with an appreciation of the absurd, and that may exclude all conservatives who aren't PJ O'Rourke.
But if the NRA position is to be taken literally, why should the government be able to prohibit private ownership of automatic weapons? What about a 155mm howitzer? That's "arms", right?
And George Soros could afford an Abrams tank or two, so why should he be denied that constitutionally guaranteed right? Hell, I want my own Stinger missiles NOW!
Damn right, Dem -- then we can all have our own militias, just like over in Eye-rack! Think of the fun we'll have...
Post a Comment
<< Home