![]() Still figuring it out to be honest, but I have some political thoughts on education and suddenly remembered I can rant and provide content! Win/win! ![]() Hood Feminism is going to be a solo act going forward, and I have been working out how to handle that part. ![]() In my defense…I have none really, except busy writing for other places and figuring some things out behind the scenes here. So, how about limiting the number per household & restricting the size of magazines nationwide? After all the US has 300 million guns, not the 3 million or so estimated to be in civilian hands in Australia. ![]() Okay I can accept that we won’t do as Australia did and surrender every weapon to a mass buyback. The ship sailed on the US giving up guns decades ago. Sensible gun control that recognizes the intent of the 2nd Amendment would limit the number & the capabilities of weapons in a home. Your right to bear arms was never intended for this level of weaponry. I won’t even get into rocket launchers or grenades. No one could have envisioned 300 round bursts, much less the 1200 to 1500 rounds a minute that early Tommy guns were capable of firing. Or that a standing permanent military force was never intended to exist alongside that militia. The Second Amendment was written in the era of cannons, muskets & flintlock pistols. Or the bit about a well regulated militia. What fascinates me about people who insist the Second Amendment gives them a right to bear military weapons at brunch is how often they ignore what arms meant. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |