Lots of folks are talking about gun control nowadays. I have to confess that I am ambivalent about guns. On the one hand, I don’t approve of government’s disarming the populace leaving only government thugs and non-governmental criminals with arms. On the other hand, I don’t much want to live in an armed camp all the time. I have known too many volatile yahoos who, had they been armed at the time, would probably have killed someone over some perceived slight.
The right to bear arms isn’t absolute, is it? For instance, if my neighbor possessed a thermonuclear device for personal defense, that would make me really nervous. I don’t think he should be allowed to have such a thing as nothing good can possibly come of it. I don’t think the 2d Amendment contemplated rocket propelled grenades or nerve gas for home use. There may be a point where insisting on the right to bear sophisticated and powerful arms becomes a little crazy, but I am not sure where to draw the line. Frankly, I don’t know all that much about firearms.
I used to think that the 2d Amendment should be interpreted as acknowledging a right to bear such arms as existed in 1789. It’s hard to go on a spree with a musket. But then, only law-abiding folks would limit themselves to musketry. Cops and other criminals would doubtless have modern weaponry. Also, if you look at the 2d Amendment as protecting the populace from the government itself, shouldn’t the populace be allowed to have any weapon that the government has in its arsenal? My brain hurts.
It seems to me that having a firearm in the home for personal defense rarely results in a homeowner’s thwarting a crook. More often, the homeowner gets wasted by home invading cops, he kills or is killed by a member of his own household, or a youngster accidentally kills someone or himself while playing with the weapon. Then again, who am I to tell folks in another household what risks they should tolerate? Also, why should all the firearm owners who don’t kill themselves or their loved ones be inconvenienced because of the minority who are irresponsible or unfortunate? These are things to consider in deciding whether to have firearms in my home and what precautions to take, not whether I should restrict others from making decisions about firearm ownership and handling.
How likely is it that Mrs Vache Folle would get so riled at me that having a firearm handy would put me at risk? I don’t aim to find out.
When I was in high school, I was an Explorer Scout and participated in competitive shooting. I had a single shot 22 rifle that I used in competition and practice, and I sometimes had to bring it to school and keep it in my locker. Nobody cared. They knew I wasn’t going to shoot anyone. Of course, that was back in the day when melancholy adolescents just killed themselves instead of taking others with them.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comment:
I happen to dislike arguments in which the imposed are pressed to justify their right to not being imposed upon!
That said, I disagree with Rothbard's contention that the mere possession of a thermonuclear weapon is an act of aggression in itself.
Post a Comment