Lots of talk about banning people on either the terrorist watch list or the no-fly list from buying guns since the Orlando shooting. I have two thoughts on the subject:
1. It is reasonable that people on either list should be subjected to extra scrutiny, but without some sort of court action (and I will even include the filing of an indictment in that definition) they should not have their rights infringed. I say that they should be subjected to extra scrutiny so that if they are being investigated the investigators have notice of whats going on.
2. When did we start equating accusation with conviction. Personally I think it started back in the 80s with MADD and their bullshit, but it has steadily grown over the years. Now it doesn't matter what the accusation is you are presumed guilty as soon as it is made. That needs to stop.
One other thing - I saw an article in the NY Times today - I Used an Assault Rifle in the Army. I Don’t Think Civilians Should Own Them.
One of the stupidest pieces I have ever read. The guy gives three instances of reflexive violent behavior that occured after he returned from Afghanistan, behavior that was consciously trained into him and then further ingrained by time in a war zone and that equates to civilians are dangerous when they have high velocity small caliber semi-automatic rifles with large magazines. If we actually follow his logic what the headline should be is "I used an assualt rifle in the army and should never be allowed to own a weapon again."
No comments:
Post a Comment