Wednesday, March 13, 2013

Gun Control

"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms. The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government"
-- Thomas Jefferson, 1 Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334

As a teenager in America there are two birthdays that are welcomed with more hoopla than the others- the 16th and 18th birthdays.  Everyday thousands of fifteen year olds count down the days until they can apply to get their driver's license. When the day comes that they can walk into the glorious DMV (one of the most pleasant places I've ever been) many will leave with a sheet of paper indicating that they're ready to hit the roads alone.  The 18th birthday is greeted with a similar amount of excitement. For the first time in your life, you are legally considered an adult.  Many teens greet adulthood by going to the local gas station convenience store and picking up a handful of lottery tickets, some buy cigarettes, and other guys grab their first copy of a Playboy magazine.  I didn't do any of the things, but I did exercise one privlege my new age allowed.  Four days after I turned eighteen, I drove up to the small gun store in Matthews, North Carolina and picked up my first firearm, a Browning .270 X-Bolt rifle. 

I take my right to bear arms very seriously, and I will not allow someone to take that fundamental right away from me. Ever. 

The gun control debate that is occurring in cities across America and in the chambers of Congress could limit our Second Amendment right.  Senator Diane Feinstein has introduced, to the 113th Congress, a bill that does the following:
  • Bans the sale, transfer, manufacture and importation of 157 specifically-named weapons including the Bushmaster, Smith & Wesson M&P15, AK-47, Streetsweeper and others
  • Bans the sale, transfer, manufacture and importation of all semiautomatic rifles and handguns that can accept a detachable magazine and have at least one "military" feature
  • Bans the sale, transfer, manufacture and importation of all semiautomatic rifles and handguns that have a fixed magazine with the capacity to accept more than 10 rounds or are belt fed
  • Bans the sale, transfer, manufacture and importation of all semiautomatic shotguns that have a detachable magazine, revolving cylinder, fixed magazine capable of accepting more than 5 rounds or at least one military feature
  • Bans the sale, transfer, manufacture and importation of all ammunition feeding devices (magazines, strips and drums) capable of accepting more than 10 rounds.

These proposed bans have no place in this country.  Senator Diane Feinstein, Piers Morgan, Michael Bloomberg, and people of the same likes are fear mongering the citizens of this republic.  They misuse wording like "military style" and "assault weapons" to describe a specific type of semi-automatic rifles that merely looks threatening.  They make it seem unreasonable for any person to own a rifle like that. They try to use the voice of reason when they say that no one needs a "high capacity magazine" that holds more than 10 rounds.  They argue that hunters do not need an assault weapon.  

I never want to see another mass shooting like the one at Sandy Hook Elementary School.  And, I also never want my right to legally and responsibly own a Smith & Wesson M&P 15-22, an "assault weapon" that would be banned under the proposed bill, to be hampered.  The way to reduce gun violence is not to ban the firearms that so many American's lawfully use to recreationally shoot, hunt, and protect ourselves.

4 comments:

  1. I think you are right that the phrases "military style" and "assault weapons" are a bit misleading, as they seem to suggest automatic weapons. I bet most people believe that this is actually what these phrases mean--of course it doesn't. Since these are semi-automatics, this means that the difference between these guns and non-"assault weapons" will be hard to pinpoint.

    Nonetheless, what is the argument in favor of holding these guns? If it could make even a small difference, why not do it? What's wrong with the argument that "hunters do not need an assault weapon?"

    ReplyDelete
  2. I completely agree with everything you just said! It is our fundamental right and the laws they are trying to install are simply not going to work at reducing mass shootings, instead we need to take better precautions that doesn't involve controlling guns of law abiding citizens.

    ReplyDelete
  3. I understand that you don't want your guns taken away but I do not understand the argument against high capacity magazines. What benefit do they provide other than allowing you to shoot bullets for a little bit longer. If you are shooting legally, not at people that doesn't seem like that big of a deal. But when you are shooting at humans, the high capacity magazines make a difference. According to Mother Jones (Which has the same statistics about mass murders as the dat you used to correct my statistical errors) more than half of all mass shooters possessed either a high capacity round, assault weapon, or both. Somewhere along the line if we want to see these tragedies stop occurring, someone is going to have to give something up.

    ReplyDelete
  4. You use public figures such as Michael Bloomberg (who I rarely agree with, let me say) and Piers to say that they are "fear mongering the citizens..." and I would have to disagree with that. If I were to put up two names of the culprits of fear mongering, I would choose James Holmes and Adam Lanza. I'm sure you know both of those names considering they took over 40 innocent lives between the two of them.

    Thomas Jefferson's quote is right on. I never think Americans should have to give up all their guns. I'm all about the Second Amendment. But you also have to look at the fact that when Jefferson said that, the best gun around was the musket. I think even the founding fathers would agree that Bushmaster XM-15s and AK-47s have no place in the hands of this country's citizens.

    I'm not worried about our government turning tyrannical on us any time soon and I think the military would be on our side if such a thing were to occur, so we need to get rid of these guns that only make the news for killing the innocent. I don't want your bolt action to be handed over, just the killing machines.

    ReplyDelete