TexasCHLforum.com

a heavy-duty AR-14 assault rifle, the same model used by U.S. troops in Iraq and Afghanistan

AR-14? A fact-checker, a fact-checker, my kingdom for a fact-checker......
Since he seems to describe a full-auto shooting experience, I'm going to guess that this was actually an M-14....

As the effect of the bourbon faded, I found my queasiness about guns returning. I thought about that famous yardstick of individual freedom—the commonly articulated “harm principle.” This was the idea, set out by John Stuart Mill, that we should be free to do anything as long as it didn’t harm others. It was hard to escape the idea that guns weren’t just capable of enacting the most severe definition of “harm” possible, they were specifically designed for it.

Balance that against the harm principle as applied to populations WITHOUT guns; i.e., denizens of the Warsaw ghetto in 1943, Cambodia under Pol Pot, or that marine in the jewelry store in San Antonio recently, just to name a few.......

thus endeth my rant for the day....

Several years ago when I was on a kick of collecting WW-II vintage rifles, I had acquired a Longbranch #4 Mk1* Enfield. I was out at the Fort Hood Sportsman's Range sighting it in after I had cleaned it up. While there, I encountered a Soldier who had brought his Father-In-Law out the range. The older gentleman was a Brit and a Korean War vet. When he saw the Enfield, he started a discussion about it that it was like the one he had carried in Korea. I asked if he wanted to shoot and of course he did. Let him fire about 10 or 15 rounds. He was very appreciative and marveled at the fact that we as Americans could own guns like this. He stated that, at that time, mostly only farmers were allowed firearms in the UK and that even those were usually only single shot or double barrel shotguns (and even those were highly regulated by the police). As he left, he remarked that we Americans should never give up our right to own and use guns.

JustSomeOldGuy wrote:

a heavy-duty AR-14 assault rifle, the same model used by U.S. troops in Iraq and Afghanistan

AR-14? A fact-checker, a fact-checker, my kingdom for a fact-checker......
Since he seems to describe a full-auto shooting experience, I'm going to guess that this was actually an M-14....

More likely he was confusing the nomenclature for an AR15 and an M4. Full auto M14s are pretty rare.

Great read, thank you for sharing. It's interesting to hear things from a Brit's perspective, and it's quite refreshing to hear him understand why we are so extraordinarily protective of our rights.

As the effect of the bourbon faded, I found my queasiness about guns returning. I thought about that famous yardstick of individual freedom—the commonly articulated “harm principle.” This was the idea, set out by John Stuart Mill, that we should be free to do anything as long as it didn’t harm others. It was hard to escape the idea that guns weren’t just capable of enacting the most severe definition of “harm” possible, they were specifically designed for it.

What the foreign citizen failed to understand about the "harm principle" is that once someone decides they are not going to honor that and cause you harm, you have the right to defend yourself from that harm. He also apparently doesn't grasp that guns have many purposes other than pointing at another human being. Millions of people throughout history have put food in their family's mouth by hunting.

bblhd672 wrote:

As the effect of the bourbon faded, I found my queasiness about guns returning. I thought about that famous yardstick of individual freedom—the commonly articulated “harm principle.” This was the idea, set out by John Stuart Mill, that we should be free to do anything as long as it didn’t harm others. It was hard to escape the idea that guns weren’t just capable of enacting the most severe definition of “harm” possible, they were specifically designed for it.

What the foreign citizen failed to understand about the "harm principle" is that once someone decides they are not going to honor that and cause you harm, you have the right to defend yourself from that harm. He also apparently doesn't grasp that guns have many purposes other than pointing at another human being. Millions of people throughout history have put food in their family's mouth by hunting.

Knives are also specifically designed to cause "harm" but I guess that argument wouldn't sway somebody who lives where pocket knives are restricted.