While I think I can understand where you’re coming from, I want to be clear in my disagreement (without casting aspersions on your position)… I am totally comfortable with some people having a gun, even in public. I don’t think I’m comfortable with anyone owning an AR-15. Same for body armor and tear gas and commando masks and armor-pirecing bullets. I’m definitely not comfortable with the ability of virtually anyone to buy firearms, of any kind, without rigorous background checks, historical mental health evaluations, and extensive training related to the specific firearm and its intended use (hunting vs concealed carry vs home defense… all are unique and require different skill sets). I’m not comfortable with anyone owning laser-guided shoulder-fired rockets, nuclear missiles, or frag mines… yet there are those who claim ANY ARGUMENT OR LAW ATTEMPTING TO LIMIT THESE ITEMS IN ANY WAY IS AN AFFRONT TO OUR CONSTITUTION. I find such arguments specious and ridiculous, since there was no possible way such armaments could have been envisioned in the 18th century. I also respect courts and judges who uphold our constitution as currently written (in whatever time in history those decisions are made), so I find the best path forward being a reasonable amendment to our constitution, effectively expanding and amplifying the current 2nd Amendment, to lay down some reasonable limits and guidelines so incidents like Aurora can be dealt with, as best as possible, in advance of the tragedy. What remains is the argument that when only the government and criminals have access to weapons there is the potential for a rather huge problem. I tend to agree with that sentiment in principle, but I don’t think the answer exists in allowing everyone to own every possible variety of lethal technology. I mean, at some point I suppose the government, if they so wanted, could bring a phalanx of fire-breathing tanks to your doorstep if you’re not in line with their demands… and there are those who would argue that in such circumstances the confronted citizen should be allowed to own a fleet of Apache AH-64 attack helicopters to be able to mount a meaningful defense against the government tank brigade. I believe people making that argument are being idiotic. The public doesn’t get to, shouldn’t be able to, obtain and use advanced military hardware. I understand why some may want to, but I also think I understand why my eleven-year-old wants to be Batman. There are better ways around this problem than a) banning all guns or b) arming everyone with an AR-15.

While I think I can understand where you’re coming from, I want to be clear in my disagreement (without casting aspersions on your position)… I am totally comfortable with some people having a gun, even in public.

I don’t think I’m comfortable with anyone owning an AR-15.

Same for body armor and tear gas and commando masks and armor-pirecing bullets.

I’m definitely not comfortable with the ability of virtually anyone to buy firearms, of any kind, without rigorous background checks, historical mental health evaluations, and extensive training related to the specific firearm and its intended use (hunting vs concealed carry vs home defense… all are unique and require different skill sets).

I’m not comfortable with anyone owning laser-guided shoulder-fired rockets, nuclear missiles, or frag mines… yet there are those who claim ANY ARGUMENT OR LAW ATTEMPTING TO LIMIT THESE ITEMS IN ANY WAY IS AN AFFRONT TO OUR CONSTITUTION. I find such arguments specious and ridiculous, since there was no possible way such armaments could have been envisioned in the 18th century. I also respect courts and judges who uphold our constitution as currently written (in whatever time in history those decisions are made), so I find the best path forward being a reasonable amendment to our constitution, effectively expanding and amplifying the current 2nd Amendment, to lay down some reasonable limits and guidelines so incidents like Aurora can be dealt with, as best as possible, in advance of the tragedy.

What remains is the argument that when only the government and criminals have access to weapons there is the potential for a rather huge problem. I tend to agree with that sentiment in principle, but I don’t think the answer exists in allowing everyone to own every possible variety of lethal technology. I mean, at some point I suppose the government, if they so wanted, could bring a phalanx of fire-breathing tanks to your doorstep if you’re not in line with their demands… and there are those who would argue that in such circumstances the confronted citizen should be allowed to own a fleet of Apache AH-64 attack helicopters to be able to mount a meaningful defense against the government tank brigade. I believe people making that argument are being idiotic.

The public doesn’t get to, shouldn’t be able to, obtain and use advanced military hardware. I understand why some may want to, but I also think I understand why my eleven-year-old wants to be Batman.

There are better ways around this problem than a) banning all guns or b) arming everyone with an AR-15.

Recent comments

Blog comments powered by Disqus

24 Notes

  1. viewfromhigherup said: Australia changed its gun laws so you now must have a licence to own a gun. Means that people who have legitimate need for one can own one (ie farmers, hobby shooters etc). Obv. still blackmarket firearms but also huge drop in gun crime.
  2. steeperthandeep reblogged this from apoplecticskeptic
  3. misspeache reblogged this from apoplecticskeptic and added:
    Sense!!
  4. canitbeawesome reblogged this from apoplecticskeptic
  5. fire-starter reblogged this from apoplecticskeptic
  6. bg5000 said: Then we agree, for the most part. You can ignore the last question i asked.
  7. apoplecticskeptic posted this