Interesting, Bob.
You are not anti gun. But any rational semieducated individual can't help to infer from this article that indeed, that is what you are.
If we didn't have a Constitution, the particular paragraph above would make sense. Fortunately, we do have a Constitution and its language is quite simple and clear. No "demostration of a good reason to have guns" is required. At least the Founding Fathers saw that as so self-evident as not to merit attention.
Playing devils advocate, I will agree that "demonstration of a good reason to own a gun" is necessary.
The fact that police departments at every level have told us that they have neither the ability nor the obligation to protect us from an increasingly growing violent criminal subgroup, most would agree constitutes "good reason", and is a universal right: protection of ones life and ones family.
So yeah. We're at odds. Big time.
"That rifle on the wall of the labourer's cottage or working class flat is the symbol of democracy. It is our job to see that it stays there." -- GEORGE ORWELL
You are not anti gun. But any rational semieducated individual can't help to infer from this article that indeed, that is what you are.
Not so. It's not the guns he hates and fears.
It's the owners. Disarm them [us] and he'll feel; so much better, safer to go to what he wants to do next.
Interestingly, he hasn't told us what that is. But I bet that before it's concluded, he won't like it much better than most of the rest of us.
-archy-/-