[Dead/Alive]: 308.GUN CONTROL
Lets start with the opposition’s point of view. By far, the foremost organization leading the opposition is the N.R.A. (national rifle association). The second Amendment is their base of support in opposing the gun laws. The second amendment states: “A well regulated militia, being necessary to secure a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.” The N.R.A. takes the second amendment for a literal meaning of all citizens being able to be armed when and how they choose.
Just look at past countries that enforced guns restriction laws. Germany, no citizens owned guns, the military and government oppressed the people through the fear of their military. China; again, no citizens own guns. Why, because the government is hungry for domination of its people. Being a free, democratic country, the people of the U.S. are guaranteed certain rights; the right to own and bear arms is one of them. How are people supposed to protect their families without adequate tools to do so? Answer that for yourself, and don’t say use a knife. You won’t win a gun-fight by bringing a knife.
Basically, the opposition favors the right to bear arms as a key element in the protection of our person, home, family and ultimately, if and when the time comes, our country. Personally, I stand on the opposition side of the argument. There is no way anyone is going to take my protection from my living hands. It is not that I’m a trigger-happy psycho, but, if the need arose, I’d have no inhibitions of blasting any threat to my family or myself.
Now, lets look at this from the supporter’s point of view. The only REAL argument they’ve been able to use is crime. Now, I can’t discredit that, it is true that crime has dropped in places where gun restrictions were put into place. Leading these supporters is the Brady Center. They stand on the side of placing the gun restrictions and bans. But what they fail to mention is the fact that guns do tend to deter crime as well. How many criminals do you think would attempt something criminal if he/she knew that their target was more than likely armed? I’m no criminal, but I don’t think I’d take the risk.
You may think there’re only two views to look at here. But, there is one more to consider…victi
On the flipside of my victim rant, there are the storeowners and manufacturers being made to pay hefty fines for people being shot by their guns they made. Seriously, there is something hugely wrong there. Once a gun is bought, it is no longer the manufacturer’s responsibility right? Apparently not, somehow, there’s been a loophole that allows the blame to fall on them. People say that if the dealer hadn’t sold the gun in the first place, such and such person wouldn’t have been shot. Personally, I think they are splitting hairs here now. Where does the actual shooter come into play here? If the blame falls on the manufacturer, then where does the one who actually did the deed come in? Does he/she get off free?
Oftentimes no, but why punish the innocent for the crimes of the wicked? Too many times, the American people look for someone else to blame other than themselves. Some even look for reasons as to why the shooter did the deed in the first place. Most common places where blame is laid, is the game and movie industry. Nearly every argument starts out with, “well my client wouldn’t have had the drive to commit such a crime had he not been brought up playing such violent games and watching similar movies.” Seriously, come on, a game doesn’t make a killer, a movie doesn’t make a killer, and a gun doesn’t make a killer. Here it is, point blank…a person…makes a killer.
There is a large percentage of Americans who own guns peacefully. Many of these people pursue passions such as hunting and the skill of marksmanship. Taking guns away altogether is a foolish thing to do in that it would cripple some peoples life long passions. Some people depend on guns for protection and their well being. Granted they can be used as a weapon against our fellow man, but they can also bring food to a table that has none.