Gun Control vs the 2nd Amendment
I normally avoid talking about politics, religion and sex as my blog is viewable by anyone including prospective employers. I guess my age is catching up with me because I could really care less when it comes to this subject.
I have sat back and watched for a long time regarding gun control and the 2nd amendment. I will start with the summary: Gun control needs to start happening. No, this is NOT an infringement on the 2nd amendment. Yes, I do believe in the right to bear arms. But let's think this over for a moment before hopping on the NRA bandwagon.
This is how the second amendment as passed by Congress reads:
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
Now let's think about when this was written, what was happening in the newly formed United States and how that pertains to today's debate. The colonies had to mutiny against the crown for a right to be represented as a collective. In order to do so, they took their own muskets and formed "well regulated Militias". In today's terms, we would call that the military, national guard, or reserves. The second part "being necessary to the security of a free State" means that if the borders of the United States are in need of protection, the Militia would be assembled. "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms" infers that everyone in the United States has the right to keep guns to protect the State through a well regulated Militia. During this revolutionary war, the British would raid houses and take the guns away from the colonist believing that the colonist would use the weapons to kill the British.
Time... guns in the 18th century required time to reload. Flintlocks, muskets and cannons were the weapon used by the militia. It was never thought that a weapon could unload 120 shots within a minute into a crowd of people. If you wanted to perform an action like that, you would need 120 people to shoot within a minute.
Here we are again in the 21st century dealing with an issue of people killing people in mass in public places. What do I see the following day on Facebook? A picture of a soldier holding an M16 covered in kevlar with the caption "this wouldn't happen if our soldiers protected the schools after returning home".
Stop. Just stop. We have had multiple military base mass shootings to go along with the school shootings. You want to take soldiers with likely PTSD and stick them in a school with a mass of hormone raging teenagers without any respect to authority and provide that same soldier with a loaded automatic weapon? At what point did this start making sense? Do you really think that soldier will make a difference when it comes to teenagers who don't care? What happens when the soldier accidentally kills a child? This happens all the time with law enforcement and they are trained specifically to handle these situations not like the veteran straight from Afghanistan.
Do you want your child going to school past a soldier holding an M16 in full gear? Do you want your child going to school past a police officer (which many upper schools have) with a loaded pistol? Who is going to pay for that soldier to stand guard in the school day in and day out?
Before you start harping that I am a liberal freak trying to take away your guns, let me tell you something... I am a veteran with a sharpshooter rank. I defend the rights of the people, for the people, by the people. But when those rights mean that we are given the opportunity, and ADVANTAGE to kill innocent beings by extorting those "rights", you have stepped over the line. The NRA is inflexible in their decisions and are NOT looking out for the people. They are looking out for the gun manufacturers under the gise of peoples right to bear arms.
Guns do have a purpose. To kill. That is their only purpose. They are not a deterant. They are not protection. They are meant to kill. Hunters use them to kill. If a hunter needs an AK47 to take down a deer, that hunter should not be hunting. The argument that it is the person and not the gun is also stupid. The person may not end up killing the person, but the gun will.
I believe that many people have a right to own a gun. I do not believe that right extends to automatic, or semi-automatic weapons unless you are specifically in the military.
America sees far more gun violence than countries in Europe, and Canada, India and Australia, which is perhaps how it gets its bloody reputation among comparatively peaceful nations.
When a person kills another in the United States, though, he or she generally uses a gun: 60 percent of U.S. homicides occur using a firearm, which is the 26th-highest rate in the world. (In other gun-permeated countries, such as Finland (45.3 guns per 100 people), only about 19 percent of homicides involve a firearm. Keep in mind, being 26th is not an honor; countries that beat the US include drug laden Honduras, Columbia, Mexico and South Africa.
At some point, when are the people going to say enough is enough? I think this man will: http://www.cnn.com/2014/05/26/us/california-killing-spree-martinez/index.html?iid=article_sidebar
I have sat back and watched for a long time regarding gun control and the 2nd amendment. I will start with the summary: Gun control needs to start happening. No, this is NOT an infringement on the 2nd amendment. Yes, I do believe in the right to bear arms. But let's think this over for a moment before hopping on the NRA bandwagon.
This is how the second amendment as passed by Congress reads:
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
Now let's think about when this was written, what was happening in the newly formed United States and how that pertains to today's debate. The colonies had to mutiny against the crown for a right to be represented as a collective. In order to do so, they took their own muskets and formed "well regulated Militias". In today's terms, we would call that the military, national guard, or reserves. The second part "being necessary to the security of a free State" means that if the borders of the United States are in need of protection, the Militia would be assembled. "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms" infers that everyone in the United States has the right to keep guns to protect the State through a well regulated Militia. During this revolutionary war, the British would raid houses and take the guns away from the colonist believing that the colonist would use the weapons to kill the British.
Time... guns in the 18th century required time to reload. Flintlocks, muskets and cannons were the weapon used by the militia. It was never thought that a weapon could unload 120 shots within a minute into a crowd of people. If you wanted to perform an action like that, you would need 120 people to shoot within a minute.
Here we are again in the 21st century dealing with an issue of people killing people in mass in public places. What do I see the following day on Facebook? A picture of a soldier holding an M16 covered in kevlar with the caption "this wouldn't happen if our soldiers protected the schools after returning home".
Stop. Just stop. We have had multiple military base mass shootings to go along with the school shootings. You want to take soldiers with likely PTSD and stick them in a school with a mass of hormone raging teenagers without any respect to authority and provide that same soldier with a loaded automatic weapon? At what point did this start making sense? Do you really think that soldier will make a difference when it comes to teenagers who don't care? What happens when the soldier accidentally kills a child? This happens all the time with law enforcement and they are trained specifically to handle these situations not like the veteran straight from Afghanistan.
Do you want your child going to school past a soldier holding an M16 in full gear? Do you want your child going to school past a police officer (which many upper schools have) with a loaded pistol? Who is going to pay for that soldier to stand guard in the school day in and day out?
Before you start harping that I am a liberal freak trying to take away your guns, let me tell you something... I am a veteran with a sharpshooter rank. I defend the rights of the people, for the people, by the people. But when those rights mean that we are given the opportunity, and ADVANTAGE to kill innocent beings by extorting those "rights", you have stepped over the line. The NRA is inflexible in their decisions and are NOT looking out for the people. They are looking out for the gun manufacturers under the gise of peoples right to bear arms.
Guns do have a purpose. To kill. That is their only purpose. They are not a deterant. They are not protection. They are meant to kill. Hunters use them to kill. If a hunter needs an AK47 to take down a deer, that hunter should not be hunting. The argument that it is the person and not the gun is also stupid. The person may not end up killing the person, but the gun will.
I believe that many people have a right to own a gun. I do not believe that right extends to automatic, or semi-automatic weapons unless you are specifically in the military.
America sees far more gun violence than countries in Europe, and Canada, India and Australia, which is perhaps how it gets its bloody reputation among comparatively peaceful nations.
When a person kills another in the United States, though, he or she generally uses a gun: 60 percent of U.S. homicides occur using a firearm, which is the 26th-highest rate in the world. (In other gun-permeated countries, such as Finland (45.3 guns per 100 people), only about 19 percent of homicides involve a firearm. Keep in mind, being 26th is not an honor; countries that beat the US include drug laden Honduras, Columbia, Mexico and South Africa.
At some point, when are the people going to say enough is enough? I think this man will: http://www.cnn.com/2014/05/26/us/california-killing-spree-martinez/index.html?iid=article_sidebar
Comments