hi j-t,
i have no objection to folks killing animals for food. nature's law is about surviving. but to kill for sport, as many hunters seem to, is revolting. if someone gets their kicks that way, really they ought to find a different means to pleasure themselves.
as you rightly point out, you don't need an assault weapon to kill a duck. my point was intended to be absurd. of course, assault weapons should be banned. but this is not sufficient, in my view.
thing is, if you permit hunting using guns, you will end up with children being murdered. guns are useful for killing creatures. grimly efficient. humans are creatures.
if you start with the principle that a person has a right to bear arms, unless they fall into one or two exceptional categories, then loads of nuts are going to end up having access to them. and they will use them for harmful purposes.
whereas, if you start with the proposition that a person has no such right, but certain categories of people have the privilege to carry them, then few nuts will have access to them. and so they will have to kill people with plastic forks, and suchlike weapons.
if you have a choice between a, which allows for the hunting of ducks and children, or b which limits both - i think b is a better option.
but certainly, if you choose a, then you must have an extensive system of invasive checks and mental health tests and drug tests and suchlike - let's also throw in vaginal and anal probes as Republicans seem keen on these things where it suits them. or you will have stopped nothing.
the nra has little to do with the wishes of gun owners and everything to do with the interests of gun makers. those folks are throwing everything at maintaining their market opportunity. they don't give a damn about children. money is what matters to them.
the theory that "the people" can prevent tyranny by owning guns is a strange species of nonsense. the citizens of the us would have little hope against a despot in charge of the us military. who are they going to kill with those assault weapons? the government uses drones. witness the effectiveness of guns in defence of afghanistan. the consequence of widespread ownership of weapons is much more likely to be civil war on a large scale.
but on the individual scale, the people most americans fear most - is not the government. it is other americans. bearing arms.
| 