We Need Gun Control in this Country
Picture this: You're out in the brisk, cool autumn morning. You see the sun rise, cutting through the morning mist. Sitting there, you see a beautiful 8-point buck cross your path, so what do you do?
If you said pull out your fully automatic assault rifle with a super scope and a bullet that explodes on impact, this post is for you.
That scenario above, is one of the reasons I feel we need gun control laws in this country. Now I'm no tree hugger. I believe people should have the right to choose to go out and hunt animals for food. It can be a major bonding experience for father and son (or daughter), but to use a semi-automatic rifle to hunt a deer? Are you afraid it is going to shoot back?
Whatever happened to using the standard 12-gauge and actually showing some marksmanship?
But it isn't just hunting, but the violent crime today. Take this into instance.
In the Anderson-Independent Mail, there was a story about a shooting in Anderson County that killed a man. What was right next to it? An add for a gun show, that specifically advertised semi-automatic and automatic rifles.
For those that say, "it is my Constitutional right to own a gun," you are right.
According the the Constitution's Second Amendment that was passed in 1791 (the date is crucial), "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, that may be what the law says, but that isn't what it means.
Look at this way: there are 4 ways to understanding a law that will prove that gun control is not only needed, but it is constitutional.
1-What it says?
2-Is there precedent?
3-What were the legislatures thinking at that time?
4-What was going on back then in history?
Using this, it is simple to say gun laws are needed.
One, it says a well regulated militia being necessary to the security of the free state. Well, we haven't used a militia sense we started having an army (the US Army to be exact), which also answers question 4 partially. There was no army in 1791.
Two, since this is the 2nd Amendment to the Constitution, there is no exact legal precedent.
Three, it is impossible to know what the legislators were thinking, since they didn't leave much record behind as a reference, except for the Constitution.
Back to four. What had just occurred? The American Revolution where we scrambled together some farmers and such to defeat Great Britain, because there was no established army.
Fast forward to today. Not only do we have an army, we have a navy, air force, marines, coast guard, national guard, and peace corps. We have no need for a militia anymore, which, in turn, voids the right to own a gun.
But like I said, I'm a realist and realize we can't take away guns, but we can make strict gun laws that make it very difficult to own a gun.
To start off, if you are a convicted criminal, it is impossible for you to ever buy a firearm of any kind. Second, psychology tests have to be administered and past to check on the state of the one interested in buying the gun. Third, you gun shows are regulated as to what they can show and sell: no more automatic weapons.
Finally, the type of gun sold in stores is regulated. Gone are the automatic rifles, semi-automatic rifles, and other weapons that aren't needed in society. What they can sell are shotguns and semi-automatic handguns.
There is no sense in owning an automatic rifle. If you need one of those to hunt, you need a new hobby, and you certainly don't need one of those to defend yourself-if someone invades your home, you are at the advantage because you know the layout of your home, the assailants probably don't.
So next time, when you're out hunting that buck, just remember, we only need to hear one boom of a rifle, not a continuous burst of bullets.
If you said pull out your fully automatic assault rifle with a super scope and a bullet that explodes on impact, this post is for you.
That scenario above, is one of the reasons I feel we need gun control laws in this country. Now I'm no tree hugger. I believe people should have the right to choose to go out and hunt animals for food. It can be a major bonding experience for father and son (or daughter), but to use a semi-automatic rifle to hunt a deer? Are you afraid it is going to shoot back?
Whatever happened to using the standard 12-gauge and actually showing some marksmanship?
But it isn't just hunting, but the violent crime today. Take this into instance.
In the Anderson-Independent Mail, there was a story about a shooting in Anderson County that killed a man. What was right next to it? An add for a gun show, that specifically advertised semi-automatic and automatic rifles.
For those that say, "it is my Constitutional right to own a gun," you are right.
According the the Constitution's Second Amendment that was passed in 1791 (the date is crucial), "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, that may be what the law says, but that isn't what it means.
Look at this way: there are 4 ways to understanding a law that will prove that gun control is not only needed, but it is constitutional.
1-What it says?
2-Is there precedent?
3-What were the legislatures thinking at that time?
4-What was going on back then in history?
Using this, it is simple to say gun laws are needed.
One, it says a well regulated militia being necessary to the security of the free state. Well, we haven't used a militia sense we started having an army (the US Army to be exact), which also answers question 4 partially. There was no army in 1791.
Two, since this is the 2nd Amendment to the Constitution, there is no exact legal precedent.
Three, it is impossible to know what the legislators were thinking, since they didn't leave much record behind as a reference, except for the Constitution.
Back to four. What had just occurred? The American Revolution where we scrambled together some farmers and such to defeat Great Britain, because there was no established army.
Fast forward to today. Not only do we have an army, we have a navy, air force, marines, coast guard, national guard, and peace corps. We have no need for a militia anymore, which, in turn, voids the right to own a gun.
But like I said, I'm a realist and realize we can't take away guns, but we can make strict gun laws that make it very difficult to own a gun.
To start off, if you are a convicted criminal, it is impossible for you to ever buy a firearm of any kind. Second, psychology tests have to be administered and past to check on the state of the one interested in buying the gun. Third, you gun shows are regulated as to what they can show and sell: no more automatic weapons.
Finally, the type of gun sold in stores is regulated. Gone are the automatic rifles, semi-automatic rifles, and other weapons that aren't needed in society. What they can sell are shotguns and semi-automatic handguns.
There is no sense in owning an automatic rifle. If you need one of those to hunt, you need a new hobby, and you certainly don't need one of those to defend yourself-if someone invades your home, you are at the advantage because you know the layout of your home, the assailants probably don't.
So next time, when you're out hunting that buck, just remember, we only need to hear one boom of a rifle, not a continuous burst of bullets.
You have made some good points. While I do believe every citizen should have the right to own a gun, there does need to be some control over the sale of weapons.
ReplyDeleteMy one issue here is the fact that criminals seem to be able to get what they want, and we really won't be able to stop that. Automatic weapons certainly give them an advantage. Gangs and organized crime will always have an advantage in this regard. Gun control laws will simply limit the little crook who doesn't have any criminal connections.
So what is the solution...to leave the advantage with organized crime to keep the small time crook at bay? Or allow everyone the right to a level playing field? For now, I think the latter may be the most dangerous, but if things keep getting worse, I may reverse my thinking here. The day may come when it might be best for the criminal element to have a bit of fear while committing a crime.