DC Appeals Court Gets a Ruling Right

I know several individuals who fit that description too. Hard as it might be to believe, I used to be fairly strongly (and nonthinkingly, it must be admitted) anti-RKBA—until I actually handled a firearm and realized that a gun, properly used, would put me on at least equal footing with a would-be robber or rapist. That’s what changed me into an ardent 2nd Amendment supporter.

But that doesn’t mean that I think all individuals should own, or carry, firearms. It also doesn’t mean that I advocate firearms as the first, or even always the best line of defense to an initiation of force. I don’t think I would ever relish the thought of taking another’s life; but if someone is poised to harm me or one of my loved ones, I will use deadly force to stop that threat.

As you point out, firearms are also a great equalizer when it comes to reining in abusive minions of the state. That’s why they’re so keen to keep them out of the hands of their herds.

I choose not to carry, but the area I live in is rural enough that it really isn't an issue yet. If I was living in a larger city, I would think hard about it. Arizona is a concealed carry state and I would probably do that just for the social aspect.

Not sure I would do anything for me, but if it was somebody I cared about, well, I have been known to be nasty and that was without a gun. Would I take someone's life? Hard to say and it would really depend on the circumstances.

Quick question though because I think one of your statements could be taken the wrong way.

"But that doesn't mean that I think all individuals should own, or carry, firearms."

Do you mean you think people should have the choice whether to carry or that some people should be prevented from owning firearms? I'm not trying to entrap you or anything, I just want to understand where you are coming from.

Thanks for asking about my overly general statement. What I meant by it is that it is a personal choice; and if someone genuinely thinks/feels that he cannot handle a firearm responsibly—whether for mental or physical reasons—then he shouldn’t get one. I’ve seen a few pro-gun individuals advocate “everybody” carrying—but if one is going to carry, then I think one has a responsibility to make sure he is willing and able to use it if necessary. Yes, a firearm may be a deterrent just by virtue of its presence, but what if it isn’t? To me, having an uncomfortable individual carrying is a possible setup for trouble.

Thanks, that's what I thought you meant, but I wanted to make sure.

Thanks for providing more information on the ruling, Michael.

One thing I wonder about all this linkage to military and psychological “fitness”, though: given that drug use—even regular, prescription drug use of Schedule II drugs—disqualifies one from military service, does this mean that, in general terms, the Ritalin Generation has already, unknowingly, lost the right to keep and bear arms? Nowadays with prescription drug use tracked and databased, it isn’t as though one can use the infamous “I didn’t inhale” defense.

*shrugs*

I did say I was a reluctant gun advocate. Accepting what the 2nd Amendment says was the last "libertarian" position I faced, and in many ways it was the hardest. I had to give up a lot of my preconceptions about history.

I still maintain that it is conditional. Just as one example, if there is space enough and the armed person only had a knife and I had a gun, I'd probably try to blast their knee out. I'd also probably try to warn them off first. If push came to shove would I feel differently? I might, I have not had to face that yet.

This isn't the first discussion I've had on the subject, put "reluctant gun advocate" with the quotes into Google or Yahoo and you can find some of them. Even without the ones on my site, I've tried to make what I believe is the honorable argument.