I was supposed to go to the office holiday party, but I could only leave my desk for a little while. My kids were coming into the city later in the evening, and I couldn't wait to see them. And I really couldn't think about having fun. Not today.
I can understand a gun for hunting. I can even understand a revolver if someone really feels they need protection. But an automatic weapon? Nope, sorry. Don't get it. Don't even want to try. Don't understand why a 20 something would need it, unless he's in a war zone. Newtown, CT? Not even close to a war zone.
Tonight, the boy child suggested that if a person wants to buy an automatic weapon, he should be sold a musket instead. And a powder horn. And a lead ball. And then, he can bear arms the way the framers of the constitution intended. Because I doubt they were thinking about arms that could fire a hundred rounds in the blink of an eye. I don't think they imagined that at all.
I completely agree. As a family who lives on a farm in rural Kentucky, we own three guns: two rifles and a shotgun. We keep them to protect our horses and goats and chickens from the coyotes and other predators which try to kill them. And, God forbid, in the terrible event that one of the horses might break a leg and the vet might not be able to get here for an hour or more and we might have to put one of them down.
ReplyDeleteAnd we have other friends who hunt, and I get that they own guns for that. I totally get that. But I don't get how it's possible for a family in a suburban area of CT to own several semi-automatic weapons. Why is that legal? Why on earth would any suburbanite need such a weapon? It makes no sense to me.
I love the boy's comment. The Founding Father's had no idea how weapons would advance when they wrote the Constitution, no idea at all...
Thanks for the comment!
ReplyDelete