This is going to be a short post because I worked all day yesterday, and I’m bushed. I have lots of stuff to do around the house today before going back to work tomorrow.
Over the past week, much has been said by the political parties, the media, and the various special interests on the issues of gun control and gun rights. I’m not going to rehash every argument, pro or con, for each of the pundits for each side. I have neither the time nor the patience for such nonsense except to make the following opinionated statements.
The Second Amendment as written and upheld by the Supreme Court states that each citizen may own a weapon for their use. Limits on the use were not stated in the decision nor in the Amendment. Unless you are a criminal or mentally incompetent, that is your right. You do not have to own one, but it is your right under the Constitution to have a firearm or firearms.
An assault rifle is a weapon used by the military that is fully automatic. In other words, if the trigger is held down, the weapon keeps firing until the weapon runs out of ammunition. Such weapons are generally not available to the public except under a special license. All weapons used in the multiple murder scenes of Sandy Hook, Aurora, Virginia Tech, and Columbine were semi-automatic in nature. A semi-automatic is one trigger pull equals one round fired. It irks me that the media doesn’t get this right, but I’m not surprised either (more on this later).
Additionally, just because a weapon looks like a military weapon doesn’t mean that it is like a military weapon. The AR-15 and it’s variants are the civilian, semi-automatic versions of the automatic M-16. Our politicians focusing on what the weapons look like instead of their function shows their absolute ignorance of the weapons. But politicians, like the media, never let facts get in the way of their respective agendas.
The agendas of the media and politicians has taken a liberal or progressive direction, each seeing themselves as agents of social change. While their intentions are good and potentially noble, the unintended consequences are often worse than just leaving well enough alone. As this post is about guns, let’s take a look at two instances of where guns were banned in Chicago and Washington DC.
When personal ownership of weapons was no longer legal in either city, the crime rate soared. People were murdered and robbed almost at will, and the police were powerless. When gun ownership was restored in Washington DC, the crime rate declined. In Chicago, where guns are still banned, criminals still managed to kill over 500 people last year with guns that weren’t supposed to be in the city. I have stated it before, and I’ll state it again:
“… criminals do not operate under the same social norms as the rest of society. They will always find ways to get a firearm and commit the crime because they do not obey the law, and will do almost anything to achieve their goal, i.e. illicit material gain or harm to another person.”
The politicians and the media are fighting so hard to ban firearms from the population, and I just really do not understand the media’s position other than the people in charge of the media only see themselves as to be in a better position to advance their brand of social justice, i.e., equality across the board for everyone (with them in charge, of course). The only outcome of this action is to make everyone equally helpless, including the media types. Which brings up this final thought for this post…
The First Amendment guarantees the freedom of the press without interference from the government. The Second Amendment guarantees the rights of the People to bear arms. The First Amendment stands on the shoulders of the Second Amendment, for only if there is a free People can there be Free Speech as there is the threat of the People rising up against an oppressive, tyrannical government. If the rights of the People to bear arms is limited or is outright banned by the government, can censorship of the Press by the same government be far behind?