Bearing Arms

I remember when it was mostly in third world kleptocracies that the president of the country enriched himself and his family.

The Constitution enshrines the right to bear arms, and nowhere does it specify what kind of arms.  Thus, the NRA is outraged that California now bans high capacity magazines for semiautomatic rifles, arguing that this is blatantly discriminatory against hunters who are poor shots and need to keep blasting away at that deer until finally, after a couple dozen rounds, they hit it.

But ah, now that we have a new regime, citizens will no longer be crushed under such onerous restrictions.  No, indeed. There’s nothing in the Constitution that bans high capacity magazines.  For that matter, there’s nothing that would prevent responsible citizens from owning and operating fifty caliber machine guns.

And why stop there?

It’s just a short step up to a 20mm cannon, which has much greater striking power.  These were originally deployed against aircraft, but they are highly effective against other targets when mounted on an aircraft or a Toyota Land Cruiser.

Not everyone can afford his own M67 Recoilless Rifle, but i can imagine their becoming very popular with patriotic groups since, with the M590 antipersonnel round, they’d be highly effective against herds of deer or protest marches.

The only problem i can see is that our new government might fret over the possibility of these weapons falling into the hands of blue state populations.

Or worse yet, that heavily armed red staters might become disillusioned with the current government.  Naw, surely not.  And besides, the government still has a monopoly on tanks, heavy artillery, and fighter aircraft.

Meanwhile, a frosty winter sunrise on the banks of the Petaluma.