Another day, another atrocity, more calls for thoughts and prayers.
I’ll limit this note to thoughts. I’m listening to the radio at the moment, to many gun-discussions following the atrocity on Nov. 4. The host just asked a caller if he was not concerned that the shooter had stockpiled such a massive arsenal of high-power weaponry; the caller demurred.
Why was I not surprised?
Two questions: One, the Second Amendment speaks of “arms” but the only arms ever rabidly defended seem to be guns. I’m unaware of similar grousing over the inability to possess hand grenades, various explosives, poison darts, etc. Why are guns the only arms over which even the most reasonable oversight is found objectionable by many?
Two, I cannot understand how assault-style weapons came to be considered “just fine” for civilian ownership. Why would anyone want one (or more)? To look at? To fantasize? Do they have a single lawful purpose? The apparently easy availability of this category of weaponry is a major public health hazard which endangers us all and cannot be justified. In my humble opinion