I have noted in this space (recently) my overall aversion to assault weapons in the hands of civilians like the “cussed mean” boy in El Paso. I hold to that position.
I will now argue the other side. There are two sides here on this blogsite, unlike at some of our major news outlets.
The persons who want to protect all gun rights. Remember, we are after consistency here.
We have agreed with many others the belief at this point; no civilian needs an AR-15. We see the sense in this statement.
Like all absolute statements, this one has a series of rejoinders. For one, you may need an AR-15 if the fellow in the checkout line behind you brought his AR-15. You cannot decide to disarm , or downarm yourself in a world swimming in guns.
Now, please understand, we understand the intention of the gun control proponents to make it harder to get an AR-15. I do not distrust their intentions. I do question their competence.
The gun rights advocates also want to know where the reduction of the 2nd Amendment will stop once it starts. And, then, what other rights will we surrender? There are numbers of people who consider gospel preaching to be “hate speech.” Where do we stop in the encroachment of our religious freedoms?
I join with the gun advocates to say, “I do not wish to cooperate with those whose intention appears to be to make me less free.” The Founding Parents were not stupid people. /Their work stands the test of time.
I don’t want less freedom. I would be okay with fewer guns in the hands of people are “cussed mean.”