After the mass shooting in Newtown, Conn., America has finally started discussing gun control regulations that will restrict the number of military-style weapons available to citizens in the domestic sphere.
As a gun owner, I understand the desire to use a gun for recreational purposes and self-defense.
Yet, I cannot wrap my head around the want of some to possess assault weapons like the AR-15, M-4 or AK-47, nor can I comprehend the need for high-capacity magazines.
Retired General Stanley McChrystal said it best, “I personally don’t think there’s any need for that kind of weaponry [assault weapons] on the street and particularly around the schools in America…I understand everybody’s desire to have whatever they want, but we’ve got to protect our children, we’ve got to protect our police, we’ve got to protect our population.”
These military-style weapons are created to devastate a target and kill in an efficient manner.
Using the 2006 United States Supreme Court case District of Columbia v. Heller as a legal precedent, assault weapons can be deemed “dangerous and exotic” so they can be made illegal.
Groups like the National Rifle Association incite fear in the hearts of gun owners by twisting the truth, claiming that the government wants to take away guns from the American people.
That is simply not true.
A love of guns is hardwired into our culture and our Constitution, and short of an amendment, there is no legal way to confiscate all guns from citizens.
The Second Amendment guarantees Americans the right to “keep and bear arms,” but just because you have a freedom does not mean you should exploit it.
At this point, with an estimated 300 million guns in the United States, banning assault weapons, high-capacity magazines and .50 caliber sniper rifles is only one step towards a safer future.
Enforcing existing laws is paramount as well: those who lie on background checks should be charged.
Gun violence is a problem, and it is a shame that the large-scale shootings overshadow the many deaths that occur all over the country.
After all, every life is of value, not just those of movie-goers and elementary-school children.
Taking the necessary, logical steps to reduce the number and availability of assault weapons is a measure of progress.
Americans need to do something to stop the increased acts of violence in the public sphere.
I also disagree with the executive vice president of the NRA, Wayne LaPierre, that more individuals with concealed-carry permits will solve the gun violence problem.
LaPierre offered the claim that “the only way to stop a bad guy with a gun is with a good guy with a gun.”
The problem with this line of reasoning: how does one distinguish a good guy from a bad guy?
Promoting civilian vigilantism is not the answer.
Our culture loves the idea of the gun-toting hero like Dirty Harry, but not everyone is as skilled with a firearm as this fictional character.
Some states have lax laws, such as Arizona, where the Second Amendment is thought to be a permit to carry a weapon in public or Colorado, where you can have a loaded gun in your vehicle without a permit and gun registration is illegal.
The problem with these kinds of non-restrictive gun laws is that it does not ensure that a person carrying a gun is trained thoroughly.
If you are carrying a weapon for self-defense, you have considerable power over others, and a gun is added responsibility.
Why isn’t America talking about gun safety in addition to gun control when there is talk about more individuals obtaining concealed-carry permits?
More people with guns is not the answer.
From my experience, people do not understand the complexity that carry a gun adds to your life, nor do they acknowledge that you are not the same person with a gun as you are without one.
For those of you with a concealed-carry permit that are reading this, I hope that you are conscientious of that gun on your waist or against your chest.
If you fantasize about a scenario when you have the chance to use your weapon, then I suggest you evaluate why you carry one.
Restricting the kinds of weapons you can own does not infringe upon your Second Amendment right.
Reducing the amount of bullets in a magazine doesn’t either, and if you need more than six shots to defend yourself, then I would say you are not very proficient with your weapon.
Americans need to face the harsh reality that something needs to be done about the dangerous weapons available in the domestic sphere.
It goes beyond a question of quantity—it is a question of quality.
What kind of an America do you want to live in?
guest Blogging • Feb 27, 2013 at 6:34 am
Hey would you mind stating which blog platform you’re using? I’m going
to start my own blog soon but I’m having a hard time selecting between BlogEngine/Wordpress/B2evolution and Drupal. The reason I ask is because your design and style seems different then most blogs and I’m looking for
something completely unique. P.S My apologies for getting off-topic
but I had to ask!
fishing texas tournament • Feb 16, 2013 at 8:02 am
Hi there colleagues, pleasant post and pleasant urging commented at this place, I am genuinely enjoying by these.
Justin • Feb 2, 2013 at 11:08 am
The 2nd Amendment isn’t about hunting… It’s the liberal agenda to make you believe that.
Duane • Jan 30, 2013 at 3:04 pm
So if it is alright to have assault rifles, 50 cal sniper rifles , then is it ok to have a rocket launcher, grenade launcher, maybe a tank. It’s my right so you say. Every one of those can be argued that they are for self defense for my family if things got bad. Maybe I should have the right to have anything the military has. IT’s my right isn’t it. I could go as far as I have all kinds of money and there for I want to buy a fighter jet. It’s my right.
You can see where I am going with this. The 2nd amendment MUST have limits. Where do you start? I am a gun owner and believe in the 2nd amendment but there has to be limits on what we can have. I wonder if some of this is because you don’t want the government telling you what you can and can’t have or is it that you feel that you should have one up on every body else. These assault rifles were made for one thing only. That ‘s killing people. You can spare me the BS on anything else. they are not a HUNTING RIFLE. there are so many other guns that are better to hunt with. Or is it that you think once the feds start a limit on the kind of guns you can have, that it will open the door to more. I really want to know what is on your mind. tell me!
sky fall • Jan 23, 2013 at 8:30 am
great submit, very informative. I’m wondering why the other specialists of this sector don’t understand this.
You should continue your writing. I’m sure, you have a huge readers’ base already!
Justin • Jan 21, 2013 at 12:25 pm
Here’s an interesting quote most people haven’t heard before, “the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.” – Constitution of the United States of AMERICA.
I think “Shall not be infringed,” is fairly clear. I don’t believe I see “assault rifle” anywhere in that sentence. Not do I see fully automatic firearm….Interesting. In other words, NO the 2nd Amendment Does Not have its limits.
First of all, as Alan has kindly said, “assault weapon” is a media term. There is no such thing. It just shows the lack of knowledge on behalf of the writer of this article. As does the information in the rest of the article. I assume Lee McClelland has never operated or owned a firearm and never will. I assume Lee relies fully on the response of police if there were ever a tragedy like those we have see across our nation. Lee, police show up AFTER the event has taken place. After those horrific events have already unfolded and everyone is dead. I’m not sure about you Lee, but I prefer to be alive rather than dead. I prefer NOT to put my life in the hands of a deranged shooter in such an event. And to answer another of your questions, I define a “bad guy” as one that walks into an elementary school and assassinates women and children. I don’t think that’s a bad assessment do you? I would have called a “good guy” and armed employee that stopped the tragedy before so many lives were lost.
Lee, do you know that police have no legal obligation to help you once they arrive on the scene? That’s an interesting tidbit I was told by the Michigan State Police. It really bothers me when such people who are so undereducated about such issues. How about more facts and less opinions?
This article is full of hatred, lies and is very misleading. I hope that NMU does not stand behind this writer’s views, and I would be EXTREMELY offended if it does.
Lee, do you know how many people are killed with baseball bats every year? Many more than any firearms. Wait, baseball bats are just sporting equipment, like an Armalite rifle….why is there not more outrage over baseball bats? Why are athletes not required to register their bats?
Lastly Lee, what do you think banning these weapons will do? Chicago has banned handguns. Chicago has the highest rate of murders with handguns in the nation. How did that legislation work out Lee? Do you know where all the recent shootings have taken place Lee? They are called “gun free zones”. That means anyone with any sort of an issue, [call it an illness if you wish] can unleash what ever sort of madness they with, and not a single body will stop them. The LOWEST crime rates in the country are areas where law-abiding citizens carry firearms. I wonder why that is?
Yes, Britain has banned certain weapons, and yes those weapons are causing less death but one problem Lee. Britain has more RAPES, ASSAULTS and DEATHS over all. Instead of a guy they are choosing a baseball bat, knife, blunt object, etc.
China has outlawed firearms. They now have mass-stabbings in their schools. Should China outlaw pointy objects too? Where does the insanity stop? You aren’t seeing the bigger picture. When did crack laws stop crack dealers? When did prohibition stop gangsters in the early 20th Century. Do you understand now?
Lee, please do not judge me. I feel that you are unfairly biased against myself and other gun owners/advocates. Please “arm” yourself with knowledge before you attack me. This article is extremely offensive and does nothing more than spew hatred on a topic that the author knows little to nothing about.
Thank you,
Justin
max • Jan 21, 2013 at 8:54 am
In 2014 when the Democrats retake the House of Representatives (and they will since the Republican party is in shambles), true gun control will become law and the 2nd Amendment will be finished.
max • Jan 21, 2013 at 8:41 am
President Obama has pledged to focus on serius and meaningful gun control for his second term. Hopefully he and his party will ban these firearms for good. We need to follow the lead of Great Britain, Australia, Japan and other nations with the common sense of prohibiting gun ownership among citizens.
comments • Jan 21, 2013 at 6:34 am
Amazing blog! Do you have any hints for aspiring writers?
I’m planning to start my own website soon but I’m a little lost on everything.
Would you suggest starting with a free platform like WordPress or go for a paid option?
There are so many options out there that I’m totally confused .. Any tips? Bless you!
Alan • Jan 18, 2013 at 1:04 pm
This article represents such a misunderstanding of the Second Amendment and, just as importantly, a misunderstanding of what an ‘assault weapon’ is that the author should have researched these issues before making such a post. The Second Amendment preserves our liberties and freedoms, simple as that. It is written in the single strongest statement in our Bill of Rights (“Shall Not Be Infringed”) and is not a granting of rights to the people, but a limitation of government taking away what are inalienable rights. Taking away rifles or people’s ability to shoot more than 10 rounds from them is just that.
“Assualt weapons” are only held by the military and, now, police. They are fully automatic weapons. AR-15’s are not assault weapons, by any definition. They are just rifles. They look like military assault weapons (the M-16) but they are not. They are the most popular rifle in America and are used for hunting, sporting competitions, home protection and, yes as allowed by our Constitution, for no particular reason whatsoever.
The author’s quest to ban a rifle he knows nothing about and is unfamiliar with is nothing other than an exhibition of hysteria and is clearly reflected in his lack of knowledge that in Britain, where guns were effectively banned 10 years ago, they suffer 3 1/2 times the violent crime rate as America.
How’s that for disarming law-abiding citizens.
2nd Right • Jan 18, 2013 at 2:10 am
Why would you argue that a police officers life is more valuable than
mine so he should be allowed to have a large capacity magazine with 15
rounds, but somehow my family is not as precious and so I can only
have 10 rounds in a magazine to protect them from a criminal..
Jeff • Jan 17, 2013 at 11:12 am
“The power of the sword, say the minority…, is in the hands of Congress. My friends and countrymen, it is not so, for The powers of the sword are in the hands of the yeomanry of America from sixteen to sixty. The militia of these free commonwealths, entitled and accustomed to their arms, when compared with any possible army, must be tremendous and irresistible. Who are the militia? Are they not ourselves? Is it feared, then, that we shall turn our arms each man against his own bosom. Congress has no power to disarm the militia. Their swords and every terrible implement of the soldier are the birthright of Americans. The unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state governments but where, I trust in God, it will always remain, in the hands of the people.”
-The Pennsylvania Gazette, Feb. 20, 1788.