Contradiction

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

Point 1: I get the idea behind basic gun-control. I agree with the basic idea that, while we can't predict the future, it is reasonable to put certain restrictions on folks that have been shown to be not completely trustable.

Okay, I'm good with that.

Point 2: Society needs to enact certain laws because it's just not okay to permit aggressive criminal force or to standby with indifference while criminal aggression takes place.

Okay, I'm good with that.

Point 3: I can understand a general concern over guns because a murderer or a person determined to commit mayhem can do so more with less planning, effort or difficulty.

Okay, I'm mostly good with that.

Here's the contradiction: Guns, especially those that conform to the appearance of military weapons, get more attention than older traditional firearms. I here about bans on assault weapons from pro-control folks who bother themselves to articulate or simply endorse a legislative agenda. Why are these same folks NOT making the highest priority discontinuing the supplying of civilian law enforcement with actual military weapons? This isn't standing by and accepting that a criminal can access a means to make murder easier. This IS accepting state sponsored murder.

A side issue: IMHO SWAT units should operate with independence from local municipal police and probably be separate state level units, answering to a state level executive structure.