Advertisement
Your Ads Here
As the Democrat Rahm Emmanuel said, "You never let a serious crisis go to waste. And what I mean by that it's an opportunity to do things you think you could not do before."
Removing guns from private ownership has been a long goal of the left. Like all of their prohibitions and compulsory laws, it's for our own good, dontcha know. The Aurora incident will be used to renew the clamor for increased gun control.
Many conservatives oppose any form of gun control for fear that, once the door has been opened, more and more restrictions will occur over time. Using the left's patient gradualism, they will have set in motion the process by which we will eventually be disarmed.
Many conservatives oppose gun registration, for fear that it will give government a list of gun owners, making it much easier to confiscate weapons once that government decides to do so.
I understand these concerns because they are valid. The question is, how can we keep guns out of the hands of maniacs without denying guns to peaceful, responsible citizens?
Should there be some sort of gun control, i.e., preventing the sale of Thompson machine guns to the public at large? How about preventing the sale of guns with huge ammo clips, ones that allow assailants to fire 60 bullets without reloading (like the one used by the Aurora shooter)? Why would such firepower be necessary for merely protecting one's home or business?
James Holmes purchased thousands of rounds of ammunition in preparation for his killing spree. Should there be a limit on the amount of ammunition that one can buy at a given time?
The gun control question is one of freedom vs security. More control might mean the purchase of more security (from armed psychotics) at the expense of less personal liberty. Would the transaction be worth it? Or is more freedom worth the risk that some will abuse that freedom to perpetrate evil?
Would the availability of guns to a well-armed public prevent such massacres in the future? Personally, I believe that it would. Surely the maniacs would understand that their killing spree would likely end in their own deaths. That wouldn't stop them all, especially if they want to die as martyrs. It would, however, slow them down. Right now, the Jared Loughners and Seung-Hui Chos and Dylan Klebolds know that they will be shooting fish in a barrel, i.e. that their targeted victims will be unarmed and unable to return fire.
In my opinion, we need to give them a new paradigm on which to construct their fantasies: one of a well-armed, gun savvy public who will kill them in short order should they draw down on innocents. I support right-to-carry laws, now more than ever. However, having said that, some reasonable controls over gun ownership are inevitable and probably desirable. Furthermore, those controls should be made at the state level, not the federal.
I'd be interested in hearing from readers. Where am I right and where am I wrong?
Many conservatives oppose gun registration, for fear that it will give government a list of gun owners, making it much easier to confiscate weapons once that government decides to do so.
I understand these concerns because they are valid. The question is, how can we keep guns out of the hands of maniacs without denying guns to peaceful, responsible citizens?
Should there be some sort of gun control, i.e., preventing the sale of Thompson machine guns to the public at large? How about preventing the sale of guns with huge ammo clips, ones that allow assailants to fire 60 bullets without reloading (like the one used by the Aurora shooter)? Why would such firepower be necessary for merely protecting one's home or business?
James Holmes purchased thousands of rounds of ammunition in preparation for his killing spree. Should there be a limit on the amount of ammunition that one can buy at a given time?
The gun control question is one of freedom vs security. More control might mean the purchase of more security (from armed psychotics) at the expense of less personal liberty. Would the transaction be worth it? Or is more freedom worth the risk that some will abuse that freedom to perpetrate evil?
Would the availability of guns to a well-armed public prevent such massacres in the future? Personally, I believe that it would. Surely the maniacs would understand that their killing spree would likely end in their own deaths. That wouldn't stop them all, especially if they want to die as martyrs. It would, however, slow them down. Right now, the Jared Loughners and Seung-Hui Chos and Dylan Klebolds know that they will be shooting fish in a barrel, i.e. that their targeted victims will be unarmed and unable to return fire.
In my opinion, we need to give them a new paradigm on which to construct their fantasies: one of a well-armed, gun savvy public who will kill them in short order should they draw down on innocents. I support right-to-carry laws, now more than ever. However, having said that, some reasonable controls over gun ownership are inevitable and probably desirable. Furthermore, those controls should be made at the state level, not the federal.
I'd be interested in hearing from readers. Where am I right and where am I wrong?
Advertisement
Your Ads Here
0 Comments
EmoticonEmoticon