Musings on gun control
Recent events made me think about gun laws a bit. I think it did with a lot of people. Virginia has almost no gun control, although Virginia Tech was a gun-free campus.
I was tempted at first to say, "Fat lot of good it did them," but then it occurred to me that if I owned a handgun, which I probably would if I was going to a university where I'd have to be walking around at night, I wouldn't have one on me if I was going to class during the day. Granted, it was an M-16, but I spent 11 weeks carrying a weapon around 24-7 during training and it's a huge pain in the ass. If I was going to be carrying 30 pounds of engineering books and a laptop, the last thing I'd want to add to the load would be a handgun, because I wouldn't ever own some wussy little .22. So were I going to a daytime class, I am pretty sure, knowing the way I think, that my .45 would be in its gun locker back in my apartment.
Gun control can only work if it's a nationwide initiative. It works somewhat in Canada, and I never had any issues with it up there, but this isn't Canada. I'm not a gun nut, but I quite enjoy shooting now, and if the Constitution allows for me to have a firearm, which it does, I shouldn't be impeded from that. americanstd feels that this means we should be allowed to have a 50 cal up on the roof if we jolly well choose, and while I wouldn't take it *that* far, I would remind the readership that we at least IF we collectively have enough armaments to successfully repel invaders and if need be, overthrow the government.* Given that level of household firepower, a lone kook shouldn't be a problem.
*Before anyone squawks "Insurrection!" that's what the Founding Fathers had in mind. Yes, really.
Edited to try to keep people from thinking gun ownership should be mandatory, which it is in parts of Switzerland, with compulsory reserve membership. That's too much compulsory anything for me. A Canadian once asked me back in '90 why I was so against the idea of a draft. "Because the government should not be allowed to make me do anything I do not want to do," I said.
I was tempted at first to say, "Fat lot of good it did them," but then it occurred to me that if I owned a handgun, which I probably would if I was going to a university where I'd have to be walking around at night, I wouldn't have one on me if I was going to class during the day. Granted, it was an M-16, but I spent 11 weeks carrying a weapon around 24-7 during training and it's a huge pain in the ass. If I was going to be carrying 30 pounds of engineering books and a laptop, the last thing I'd want to add to the load would be a handgun, because I wouldn't ever own some wussy little .22. So were I going to a daytime class, I am pretty sure, knowing the way I think, that my .45 would be in its gun locker back in my apartment.
Gun control can only work if it's a nationwide initiative. It works somewhat in Canada, and I never had any issues with it up there, but this isn't Canada. I'm not a gun nut, but I quite enjoy shooting now, and if the Constitution allows for me to have a firearm, which it does, I shouldn't be impeded from that. americanstd feels that this means we should be allowed to have a 50 cal up on the roof if we jolly well choose, and while I wouldn't take it *that* far, I would remind the readership that we at least IF we collectively have enough armaments to successfully repel invaders and if need be, overthrow the government.* Given that level of household firepower, a lone kook shouldn't be a problem.
*Before anyone squawks "Insurrection!" that's what the Founding Fathers had in mind. Yes, really.
Edited to try to keep people from thinking gun ownership should be mandatory, which it is in parts of Switzerland, with compulsory reserve membership. That's too much compulsory anything for me. A Canadian once asked me back in '90 why I was so against the idea of a draft. "Because the government should not be allowed to make me do anything I do not want to do," I said.