kw: politics, firearms, opinion, sensibility
I have had about enough of NRA posturing. They still talk about the right to "hunt", while defending the collecting of huge numbers of weapons whose only possible use is mass murder, by some of the most unstable elements of society. The actual position of many in NRA was most clearly stated by Rush Limbaugh a number of years ago (and probably on several occasions): "The Second Amendment is there in case the government won't keep the First Amendment."
Such a statement advocates armed insurgency against government. How many ways can you spell "Treason"? If it really comes to that, does anyone really expect to come out ahead in a conflict with a government that has at its disposal a military organization of five branches (plus 50 national guard units), each of which can afford to spend millions or even billions in a matter of days?
Hey you, there, you reading this: Did you learn to read after 1993? If so, maybe you never heard of Ruby Ridge, Idaho or Waco, Texas. Look 'em up, or look up Randy Weaver and David Koresh. But maybe you are the defiant type. Maybe you are one of those fellows who say, "They'll only get my gun by prying it out of my cold, dead fingers." Really? There are some entirely humorless fellows out there who are totally up to that challenge. If they think that's what is needed, they'll accomplish it without breaking a sweat.
Not only that. In a martial arts class I was taking half a century ago, a student asked, "What if we are attacked by someone with a dangerous weapon?" The instructor said, "There are no dangerous weapons, just dangerous men. Learn well, and you can neutralize anything." Account for the times; at present I know some dangerous women also. Some people I know wouldn't have to pry the gun out of your "cold, dead fingers", because they'd remove the fingers and the hand before you could squeeze the trigger. And you'd probably not even set eyes on them.
So let's be sensible. There is no legitimate reason for private citizens to own mass murder weapons, period. A weapon for self-defense is one thing. The kind of weapons used by the killer in the Connecticut school, or the one Colorado movie theater, must be eliminated. I equate such weapons with hand grenades. There is a reason you can't get a live hand grenade on eBay or Craigslist. There a similar reason you need a special permit to obtain C-4 or dynamite. We can't have a "hobbyist" accidentally blowing up a city block.
Oh, did you say you like to collect guns? They are not stamps! In my view, weapon collecting ought only to be allowed if the weapons are permanently disabled.
And yes, I am a conservative. I vote about 85% Republican (because about 15% of conservatives are Democrats. I observe deeds, not ideologies). I am the kind of old-fashioned conservative who remembers that environmentalism began as a Republican ideal: conserving a portion of the wilderness; the kind who knows that Liberal used to mean "in favor of more liberty" and used to be a part of the conservative agenda; the kind who thinks the Bible meant it when it said, "Those who live by the sword will die by the sword", just update "sword" a couple millennia; and the kind who thinks the "insanity defense" should not exist, because of course the killer was probably insane, but we want that kind of insanity eliminated from the gene pool anyway. Now, there's a mixed bag of political ideas, but they used to define "conservative".
I am in favor of a law that allows law enforcement officers who see anything that looks like a mass murder weapon, to confiscate it immediately, with deadly force if necessary. Oh, yeah, outlaw toys that look like that, also. We don't want a cop to take a kid's plastic toy, now, do we?