I just feel like this is something that needs to be said, and I haven't seen anyone else approach it, at least not directly, so here goes.
******************
I am pro-gun. I believe in our Right to Bear Arms. I do not think we should make laws making it harder for law-abiding citizens to obtain guns.
I do not think that guns kill people. I think that criminals do. Sometimes crazy criminals, but criminals.
Making it harder for law-abiding citizens to obtain a firearm does nothing, since often the guns used in crimes are stolen.
Criminals do not care for the law. They don't care how many laws you enact, they will break them to accomplish their goal.
Stricter gun laws are not the answer.
Now, that being said, I cannot think of one single legitimate reason why automatic or semi-automatic weapons are legally available in this country. Not one.
Furthermore, I do not think banning semi-automatic weapons infringes on your right to bear arms. It doesn't.
The only reason "legitimate" reason I know of to own a semi-automatic weapon is for fun, because you enjoy shooting them. They're not permitted for hunting. In the face of an intruder, a single-shot firearm will protect you just fine.
And taking away something that you think is "fun" is not infringing on your constitutional right to protect yourself.
I have thought, and thought, and thought, and thought, and thought, and I just cannot come up with a reason why these firearms are permitted in the hands of anyone other than law enforcement or military personnel.
Not one.
Do I think banning semi-automatic weapons will keep mass shootings from occurring? No.
Do I think that by slowing the shots fired it will limit the number of casualties and give more people a chance to escape with their life? Yes.
Do I think that chance is worth people giving up something they think is "fun"? Absolutely.
3 comments:
I absolutely agree.
Throwing this out there to counter-balance your argument... The 2nd Amendment is not about hunting, gun collecting, or protecting yourself from intruders. The 2nd Amendment is all about maintaining a well-regulated militia in the event that your government becomes tyrannical and it becomes necessary to rise up and take it back. Why were the Founding Fathers concerned about this? Well, they just went to war against England because it had become a tyrannical government. They tried to reason with them, tried to make deals, and it just was not happening. King George III had a huge debt from a war that he needed to pay off and he saw the Colonies as his personal coffer. Taxes were the way to go. So, he just kept raising them. Eventually, the Colonists said, "No," and there was a Tea Party and it was war.
Now, if King George had said that the Colonists had no need for anything more substantial than a bow and arrow and outlawed them when things started getting fractious, the Colonists would have said, "Thanks, but no. We shall keep our muskets since you have muskets." The King might have responded that a bow and arrow was all you need for hunting and he was declaring a BAN.
The part about the well-regulated militia is "We The People," not any government branch. We are they. And if the government has assault weapons, then we should have access to them. Not the criminals. Not the mentally ill. The law abiding citizen. And any gun owner should be a responsible one and know how to shoot and care for his/her weapon.
The 2nd Amendment is about PARITY. It has nothing to do with hunting, gun collecting, or intruders. It is part of The Bill of Rights.
Just something for you to research... The President is giving our high ranking military a Litmus Test right now. Will you or will you not fire on American Citizens if they refuse to lay down their arms? If said military officials won't fire on Americans they are being forced to resign their commissions. But, I am sure it is nothing to worry about.
To be fair and honest- Robin, above, is a friend of mine. We have met IRL. That being said, her research on this topic is impressive and I agree completely with her on preserving 2nd amendment rights and what I believe is the intention of them.
I would also ask you what is someone to do if they are attacked by more than one criminal, as is often the case. I actually think about the people who had to protect themselves and their families and what little they had left after hurricane Katrina as a perfect example. And also think about the point that the government is known for its habit of starting out by making one type of something illegal and then moving on down the line, infringing on our rights little by little. And do you actually think that criminals are going to stop using their multi-shot weapons and turn them in so we can have a little more time to run away from them? Think again. We'll be spending more time running alright...
"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety." – Benjamin Franklin
The above quote is at the top of my blog for a very good reason. I trust the American people far more than I trust the American government.
While I agree with you on so many things and enjoy your thought processes very much, I have to disagree on this one.
Post a Comment