In her column “Reason takes on gun violence,” Carol Peterson writes:
“…Let me be clear. I support the Second Amendment right of citizens to bear arms. Let me be equally clear that I, along with other solid conservatives — from a well-known Army general to an Arizona, Bush-appointed federal judge — fully support massacre-control legislation. Other gun violence needs to be addressed but, for now, let’s eliminate the ability of a lone shooter to kill and wound scores of innocents in a matter of minutes.
“When a mass shooter has to reload, someone has that moment to take him down. Laws limiting the capacity of magazines, clips, strips and drums to 10 shots force mass gunmen to reload. No one but law enforcement and U.S. armed forces should possess high-capacity weapons with military capabilities.
“The extremists in the gun community cite the need for citizens to defend themselves against the government. But the day our government goes so rogue as to turn its military forces against its own citizens is the day you’d better be looking up and trusting almighty God. Don’t look to an AK-47, which will do little to help you against tanks, grenades, rocket launchers and shoulder-fired missiles…”
WATCHDOG: Three wags of the tail!
So Carol supports the second amendment except when she doesn’t and Newslanc gives three wags of the tail to a column proposing a solution that wouldn’t work? Really? Look at the stats! So called assault rifles are way down the list of causes of death. As far as the military is concerned she is right. A concerted military effort against the population would cause huge numbers of civilian deaths, but with years of military experience in my background I can tell you the US military would never turn it’s massive fire power on US civilians in military support of a tyrannical government. But if they did, it’s better to die fighting than cowering in a hole.