[iamnotlarry]

I am not anti-gun, but this argument tends to trigger me. What "level of destructive power" do you really need to feed your family? Not much. A single-shot rifle would suffice.

I have neighbors who own dozens of guns. Some of them hunt. They don't hunt with the Gatling guns or automatic shotguns or any of the really impressive stuff. And yes, there are some pretty impressive guns in my neighborhood. But when they hunt, they break out a .308 or .30-06 or even a little .270. Bolt-action. Their hunting rifles carry 5 shells.

So let me offer a different answer. With what level of destructive power should George Washington have been trusted? Or Sam Houston? Is a cannon too much? With what level of destructive power should anti-Assad Syrian rebels be trusted? Or Ukrainians fighting a Russian incursion? Are shoulder-launched surface-to-air missiles a little overkill? If you lived on the Estonian border, what might you be willing to own in partnership with some like-minded neighbors? If you lived in a remote mountainous region and were surrounded one day by "officials" who shot your domestic animals, your wife, and your house without explanation, what level of destructive power would you wish to possess? Would it make a difference if that mountain was located in Idaho? Or Yugoslavia?

You trust individuals with F-22s and tanks. You trust BLM employees with sniper gear. BLM!!? You trust individuals with bombers and nuclear submarines and nuclear warheads. You may justify this as not trusting individuals, but those things are literally in the hands of individuals.

This month a SWAT team was called out against a local police officer. Both sides were trusted with major fire power including grenades and assassin robots, and with major defensive gear. If it takes a SWAT team to deal with a cop having a bad day, what recourse are the neighbors allowed?