We often hear that nobody "needs" a 30-round magazine to hunt deer, or that nobody "needs" more than ten rounds to defend oneself. People who have no idea about guns, self-defense, or tactics are all too happy to tell us what we "need." Of course, the Bill of Rights is about "rights" not "needs." Each individual should evaluate for himself what are his needs.
But government agencies are another matter. As Tom Knighton at Bearing Arms notes If Anyone Needs to Explain Why They Need Guns, It's the EPA and a lot of other federal agencies too. As Knighton notes at the end of his piece "After all, I’m not sure I want to trust guns to an agency that thought a mud puddle counted as “navigable waters” in any way, shape, or form." I would hope not. It sounds silly, but this was actually a thing with these whack-jobs
Gentle readers can read the amounts of their tax dollars wasted on providing EPA agents with weapons, ammunition, and training. Since the EPA typically brings civil suits rather than criminal proceedings, which would be the domain of the Department of (in)Justice and the FBI, one wonders if these are not Obama's national security force? Remember that Obama said during his campaign that "We cannot continue to rely on our military in order to achieve the national security objectives we've set. We've got to have a civilian national security force that's just as powerful, just as strong, just as well-funded." One has to wonder what all these federal agencies are doing with all these guns? The Department of Energy or the Social Security Administration...what the heck?
These agency heads and others need to defend their agency's need for and use of guns. On the other hand, you and I do not. Period.
No comments:
Post a Comment