Your Turn, NH: Some anti-gun arguments are so lame that one has to respond
Recently, in regards to the gun debate, I have heard personal views, statistics, reports, facts, case studies, you name it, argued with fervor from concerned people who are on both sides. Mostly you hear the same old arguments that have been made since the formation of the republic. Back and forth, back and forth. Both sides are seemingly entrenched, apparently beyond any small compromise (much less on the verge of any view-altering epiphanies).
Mostly, though, I feel like it is pointless to argue with a foe who has no regard for your personal views, experiences or positions on such a polarizing argument. However, once in a while, I get so bothered by a particular argument that I just have to say something, whether it makes a difference or not.
The new term trotted out by the anti-gun crowd is "military-style weapons." It has me shaking my head and wondering, "What in the world are they talking about?"
Any weapon used by a person in a combat situation is a "military style weapon." However, this cleverly crafted use of the English language is perfect to sway people with little knowledge relating to guns, but who have good intentions.
Just because a gun looks like one you might have seen in movies like "Rambo" or "Apocalypse Now" doesn't mean it is any more lethal than many run-of-the-mill hunting gun. Any old shotgun can put 17 pellets the size of a 32-caliber bullet in the air with every shot. A typical revolver takes seconds to reload with a speed loader. Don't know what I'm talking about? Then quite possibly you don't know much about guns.
Since when does the legislative branch legislate "style?" To me this is like saying you can't own a car that looks too fast. "Style" is subjective, something that might seem to you "stylish" could be conceived quite differently by me.
Another argument in relation to this bizarre position taken by the anti-gun crowd is this: You don't need an "assault weapon" or "high capacity magazine" to hunt deer. First, the Second Amendment says "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear rms, shall not be infringed." It does not say "the right to hunt deer." In fact, deer hunting is not a right. The use of the word "militia" obviously implies using weapons that would be useful in combat.
Second, where does the government get off telling me what I do or do not need? It could be said that you don't "need" a five-bedroom house, or a car that is capable of reaching 150 miles per hour. In a free society, I'm sorry, you can't tell me what I do or do not "need."
In Switzerland and Israel, citizen-soldiers bring their fully automatic rifles home. The home-invasion rate is quite low.
This is reflected in the contrast to U.S. cities. Honestly, would you rather invade a house in Massachusetts, where most people are unarmed, or in New Hampshire, where there is a good chance that someone might possess a gun (one useful in a combat situation), regardless of whether you choose to call it "military style?"
Brandon Harvey is a carpenter in Danbury.