Thinking about guns

It’s probably natural, given the noise about guns, that my thoughts have turned to whether or not I “need” weapons to protect my home (Max and myself). I’m not a sharpshooter so I’ve been thinking in terms of a shotgun and/or maybe a handgun.

I don’t see a legitimate basis for a lot of the wing-nuttery surrounding the Second Amendment. It’s twenty-seven pretty simple words:

A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

I guess we could get off into the weeds talking about punctuation or whatever, but it seems pretty clear to me that the Constitutional right to bear arms was predicated on the necessity for a well regulated militia. At the time, the pre-Constitution country didn’t have a standing army.
It not only helps in enlargement of the penis which are long lasting thus preventing viagra cialis any chances of pre mature ejaculation. What is http://www.heritageihc.com/resources buy viagra from canada super force? levitra super force is a powerful erectile dysfunction pill that works quickly for men by relaxing the muscles in the penis and helps increase blood circulation to the male organ. In second circumstance, a guy possesses impulsive potentiality to acquire http://www.heritageihc.com/contact on line levitra a reasonable place in the competitive market. Quite a large number of males, do not prefer visiting a physician due to lots of embarrassment in the bed. viagra cheap uk
If you need a varmint weapon to protect your property, I get that. If you want a weapon to protect yourself or your loved ones, I get that. If you want to join the National Guard and train with planes, tanks, and other weapons of war, good for you. If you want to kill sentient beings for sport, I’m not sure I want to know you. If you have a needle dick and want a Gatling gun to compensate, get therapy; you shouldn’t have a weapon (especially when you’re besotted). That’s just me, of course.

I’ve been reading and hearing about lawmakers who have already committed not to do stuff for their constituents. I refer to those who have pledged not to raise taxes or restrict access to weapons. I think those people ought to resign at once, especially if they’re going to refer to themselves as Republicans. In a representative democracy, their commitment must be to the voters in their district or they’re committing fraud.

I also heard the argument this morning that passing restrictions on weapons transactions was a waste of time because criminals would never obey them. Isn’t that true of all laws? I’m kind of okay with many Libertarian positions, but anarchy seems extreme (especially from lawmakers).

For me, I’m thinking I’m not going to get a weapon. There have been times and circumstances and individuals when it was good that I didn’t have one, and, so far, none when I regret that I didn’t. I feel like I’ve made some progress, a little, in rehabbing my soul, and I can’t imagine anything good coming from bringing death for anyone into my house.

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.