I am deeply in the "making holes in targets while simultaneously making loud noises is FREAKIN' AWESOME" camp.
My problem is several-fold. As I said above, the "psycho violent loony" bloc is the only bloc that still supports Bush. And for the NON-psycho NON-violent NON-loonies who think that the world would be improved by bullets through the crania of, say, Musharif, Putin, and Bush, just as three entirely hypothetical examples that have NOTHING to do with my own person opinions, well, those three people have FUCKLOADS OF SECURITY.
Personally, I think that, if the Second Amendment is supposed to be a check against tyranny, then government officials should be forbidden from having security within their own country. If they want to have security when going into war zones, that's okay. But democratically-elected leaders who are officially simply citizens who represent their fellow citizens should be required to live like the people who elected them.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2007-12-03 11:49 pm (UTC)My problem is several-fold. As I said above, the "psycho violent loony" bloc is the only bloc that still supports Bush. And for the NON-psycho NON-violent NON-loonies who think that the world would be improved by bullets through the crania of, say, Musharif, Putin, and Bush, just as three entirely hypothetical examples that have NOTHING to do with my own person opinions, well, those three people have FUCKLOADS OF SECURITY.
Personally, I think that, if the Second Amendment is supposed to be a check against tyranny, then government officials should be forbidden from having security within their own country. If they want to have security when going into war zones, that's okay. But democratically-elected leaders who are officially simply citizens who represent their fellow citizens should be required to live like the people who elected them.