Tweet
I posted this message within a thread on CNN expecting at least one person to give me an answer, whether someone simply playing devils advocate, or one of the many conservative trolls that frequently comment on their postings. Sadly, I didn't get a bite, but I would genuinely like some form of a response from someone in support of the possession of gun if it all possible. Here is the original message in its entirety.
"There are several things I will never understand about the gun advocates and their ideologies in this country. The first one is why are people against requiring a psychiatric evaluation before allowing gun ownership? I personally feel that it should be required, just as much as I feel that an individual should have to attend a gun safety and proper use course. I personally don't care for firearms, and I wish they were illegal, however, if we are to have them and allow them, why is it so taboo to advocate gun education and screening as part of obtaining them? It in no way restricts a healthy individual from obtaining them, and it would be educational for all those irresponsible individuals in the country who just want to pack a glock.
The second thing is why is it so hard to make the ownership of working assault rifles and automatic weapons illegal? There is simply no purpose to their legality in working order. Thankfully automatic weapons are illegal, but why are assault rifles not? A good example is the AR-15, which is just the semi-automatic version of the M-16. I can understand collecting them (mind you, preferably not in working order), but aside from that can you really justify a purpose? For home defense, a hand gun is better due to the close quarters environment, as well as the low penetration of standard civilian rounds (due to the lack of a full metal jacket). For hunting, a normal bolt action rifle would be superior due to the accuracy of the closed chamber. So if such is the case, what justification is there for owning a working order 5.56 Nato round expending assault rifle? The same case could easily be made against a modified semi-auto AK-47 with the worse 7.62 round. Even a Barrett .50 cal. rifle is legal for purchase these days to civilians. What justification is there for its legality? Its a .50 cal... If used in hunting, the kinetic energy would cause the round to shred your kill. Yes, the argument could be made that at a proper distance, it wouldn't.. but if you owned one, would you really be doing that?
The only justifiable argument I can see being made about their civilian legal status is that allowing ownership would act as a deterrent to the potential rise of a dictatorship in this country, or possibly for homeland defense purposes (as in, if another country invades, not the governmental department). If such is the case to be made, then why not allow their legality to be under the condition of membership an organized militia only?The solution would not only address the concerns of the paranoid but would also mean that military grade armament would only be in the hands of responsible individuals charged with protecting the freedoms and safety of the populous, such as the armed forces, the various police organizations and then local, trained and disciplined militias. Frankly, I feel militias are extremely out date as asymmetrical warfare tactics have forever changed the nature of forced societal suppression and war in general."
"There are several things I will never understand about the gun advocates and their ideologies in this country. The first one is why are people against requiring a psychiatric evaluation before allowing gun ownership? I personally feel that it should be required, just as much as I feel that an individual should have to attend a gun safety and proper use course. I personally don't care for firearms, and I wish they were illegal, however, if we are to have them and allow them, why is it so taboo to advocate gun education and screening as part of obtaining them? It in no way restricts a healthy individual from obtaining them, and it would be educational for all those irresponsible individuals in the country who just want to pack a glock.
The second thing is why is it so hard to make the ownership of working assault rifles and automatic weapons illegal? There is simply no purpose to their legality in working order. Thankfully automatic weapons are illegal, but why are assault rifles not? A good example is the AR-15, which is just the semi-automatic version of the M-16. I can understand collecting them (mind you, preferably not in working order), but aside from that can you really justify a purpose? For home defense, a hand gun is better due to the close quarters environment, as well as the low penetration of standard civilian rounds (due to the lack of a full metal jacket). For hunting, a normal bolt action rifle would be superior due to the accuracy of the closed chamber. So if such is the case, what justification is there for owning a working order 5.56 Nato round expending assault rifle? The same case could easily be made against a modified semi-auto AK-47 with the worse 7.62 round. Even a Barrett .50 cal. rifle is legal for purchase these days to civilians. What justification is there for its legality? Its a .50 cal... If used in hunting, the kinetic energy would cause the round to shred your kill. Yes, the argument could be made that at a proper distance, it wouldn't.. but if you owned one, would you really be doing that?
The only justifiable argument I can see being made about their civilian legal status is that allowing ownership would act as a deterrent to the potential rise of a dictatorship in this country, or possibly for homeland defense purposes (as in, if another country invades, not the governmental department). If such is the case to be made, then why not allow their legality to be under the condition of membership an organized militia only?The solution would not only address the concerns of the paranoid but would also mean that military grade armament would only be in the hands of responsible individuals charged with protecting the freedoms and safety of the populous, such as the armed forces, the various police organizations and then local, trained and disciplined militias. Frankly, I feel militias are extremely out date as asymmetrical warfare tactics have forever changed the nature of forced societal suppression and war in general."
Comment