I don't want to get involved in this border gun controversy, I know nothing about it, but I do wish to comment on some of the philosophical issues that underlie it.

Don't get me wrong, I own firearms myself, and I don't want anyone taking away from me the ability to defend my home with force if I feel the need to do so, or to exercise those firearms in order to prepare myself for that possibility. And no, its not the government coming to steal my property I'm afraid of, (they don't need a gun to do that and my gun is not going to stop them if they choose to do so). It's my neighbor I'm afraid of, especially if he's armed.

No one has an automatic, unquestioned, god-given RIGHT to own a device which can kill me from a distance, in a way that is practically impossible for me to prevent, or even find out about. It is obvious some sort of compromise is going to have to be sought out here.

No one has an automatic right to grow pathogenic microbial cultures, or to mix explosives, or raise dangerous animals, or to disperse poison or to engage in any activity that is potentially hazardous to his neighbors, such as practicing medicine without a license, unregulated aviation, reckless driving, or even operating an unhygienic restaurant. They are potentially dangerous, either from an accident, or from the deliberate commission of a crime. And frankly, I don't care what you think the constitution says. Did it ever occur to you that maybe I don't agree with your interpretation?

This is not about choice. Its about people who like being tough guys and having guns allows them to think they are. It is also about people who are afraid of that mentality and believe that is the only way to defend themselves from it (like me!). It is also about sportsmen who legitimately engage in activity that require guns. But this is mostly about people who traffic in guns, who make, repair, buy and sell or trade guns as a business or hobby. They do have a legitimate interest in legal firearms too, but it is their interest, and not necessarily any one elses. That interest is going to have to be negotiated or regulated just like every other activity we engage in that potentially affects other people.

And no, I have no support for the anti-gun lobby, they are ignorant and foolish and cowards. But neither do I have any respect for the pro-gun lobby, they are prepared to lie, cheat and engage in political demagoguery to get their way and they don't care who gets hurt as long as they get to play soldier.

No matter how this firearms debate is eventually resolved, there's going to be a lot of people who are not going to be happy with how it turns out. But lets not muddy up the issue with all this constitutional crap and hypocritical humbug about freedom and rights. It's a smokescreen to disguise the financial and psychological motives really behind this debate.

The era of the muzzle-loading flintlock that cost a frontier family's yearly income is long behind us. It's a different world now.