Replies

OK, credentials: I, too, had to use the M-16 and agree with you that the M-14 was superior--especially since the 16's we used really did not like sand, dirt, humidity, or jelly rolls.

As to inalienable: my use of the term was imprecise. The right to self-defense (part of the right to life) is inalienable. Following from this is the right to utilize whatever is necessary for such self-defense. ALSO following from this right is the right (also inalienable) to appropriate OFFENSIVE conduct, albeit much more circumscribed. This corollary, BTW, is the one GWB is using to justify our impending cleanup of Iraq's gummint.

In essence, your claim that there is no "right" to an AR15 is only correct ASSUMING that there is another, more appropriate, weapon available; and in the case of (much less likely) required OFFENSIVE actions, your logic denying the use of an AR is invalid, as the AR (or .30-06) is a far better offensive weapon than any 6-gun.

As to the 'lacking maturity' argument you posit: until there is some reliable methodology of determining 'maturity,' I am afraid that we will have to defer the question. Although I have also had reservations about some people's attitudes about usage of guns, I have NEVER encountered an individual who has recklessly abused the privilege. BY FAR, the most "reckless disregard" is encountered from criminals.

A good understanding of the moral imperatives in weapons usage is still promulgated by GOA, NRA, and Jeff Cooper, although rarely termed as "moral instruction."

While I grant that mistakes can and will be made, it is not within our ken to discern "maturity." As a result, regardless of the potential for regrettable accidents, such a concept cannot be applied as a limitation on the "right to keep and bear arms."

Your court.