If someone you knew had a device capable of killing a hundred thousand people in a minute, would you be comfortable appealing to their sense of justice, morality, or respect for others to safeguard yourself; or would you prefer that that person simply not have access to that device? What would you be willing to do to deny them access? What if they could kill 50 in same amount of time?
I agree that people kill people. But if we know that, why give them access to powerful devices that can kill loads at once? There are actions and sanctions limiting access to nuclear materials and weapons. We don’t trust our safekeeping to the consciences of unknown entities, so why do we allow the nuclear option in civilian armament to persist?
This isn’t about watch lists, and foreigners, and mental health. You can hate whomever you want and be as crazy as you want to be, but without teeth who can you bite? Without guns who can you shoot? Let’s work on your hate and track your movements after we work on your access to rows of reloadable sharp teeth.
And by the way, don’t worry about that amendment.. it’s called an amendment because at one time people wrote something that was deemed to no longer be perfectly applicable or appropriate for the status quo. Yes. It’s an amendment. It wasn’t the first and it wasn’t the last. It can change. We can change.
Things can change.
INENARRABLE 