It is no secret that today’s news events reflect themselves in tomorrow’s policies. So it should come as no surprise when the topic of gun control makes it’s way to the center of political debate. We all know that the 2nd Amendment protects the right of every US citizen to bear arms.
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.
It was one of the first rights listed and discussed during the Continental Congress pre constitutional meetings in Philadelphia. It was a freedom that was dear to the hearts of our founders and most of the colonists during British rule. Then Americans needed their firearms for protection against hostile Indians, to hunt food and for self defense against highwaymen and robbers. It was a necessity for their survival and came in handy during the revolution.
Today there are no real hostiles we need to worry about just criminals and our protection against them is for the most part in the more than capable hands of our local and state law enforcement agencies. We get most of our food from super markets already killed, butchered and ready to cook and those that wish to hunt wild game are still allowed to do so as long as they have the proper permits. The world has changed much since those above words were written and though we are far more secure than America was in the 1700’s we are far from being totally safe, if that is even possible.
After a flurry of horrific murders by gun carrying psycho’s in the last several months the 2nd Amendment has again come under attack. While I agree our right to bear arms is still an integral part of our freedoms and must be preserved I also feel that we don’t necessarily have the right to bear all the arms that are available. The United States is not under threat of invasion and if we ever were your AK 47 or AR 15 won’t do much to stop trained infantry with full body armor, attack helicopters with chain guns and missiles or fast moving battle tanks that would make you a stain on the pavement without even slowing down. And to those of you who think you need them for protection against our own government…well good luck with that, you are out gunned from the start.
Now the big argument is centered around the ban of Assault Weapons and extended magazines by citizens and I agree 
with that. Assault weapons were developed for one reason only….to kill people. And extended magazines were constructed also for only one thing… to kill people faster. These weapons, like machine guns or rocket launchers have no business in the hands of private citizens, they are military weapons to be used in combat not for home protection. I heard a gun owner being interviewed on the local news and they were talking about extended magazines. He told the reporter he needed the extra bullets to make sure he could kill any would be attacker’s. Quite frankly if you can’t hit your target with the first 5 or 6 rounds you’re better off owning a shotgun. One shot …problem solved.
While it is true that criminals will get weapons no matter what the laws are the last two public killings, the school shooting in Connecticut and the Aurora movie theatre shooting in Colorado, were not carried out by criminals just deranged individuals who purchased their guns legally. It is clear something needs to be done but it is also clear that what needs to be done should be a well thought out solution not a hastily thrown together law which has very little impact on the problem.
A Report of the Subcommittee On The Constitution of the Committee On
The Judiciary, United States Senate, 97th Congress, second session 1982
The conclusion is thus inescapable that the history, concept, and wording of the second amendment to the Constitution of the United States, as well as its interpretation by every major commentator and court in the first half-century after its ratification, indicates that what is protected is an individual right of a private citizen to own and carry firearms in a peaceful manner.
The watch word here is “peaceful manner”. As I said earlier Assault weapons and extended magazines were not developed for peaceful use they are weapons of war plain and simple. They have one use to effectively kill people and they do their job very well and in my opinion these weapons have no place in private homes. The issue that needs to be addressed is not the issue whether or not we have the right to bear arms but whether we have the right to bear any weapons we want. We’ll see if our politicians are smart enough to realize that but I am betting they don’t.
Facebook
Twitter
We have the right to bear arms period, Ira. There is no description as to what arms are allowed. Our founding fathers knew then that whatever the future would bring, some in power will want more. Now ,as in other times of undue government control over the citizens, should we fight against the Imperial Obama. Grabbing our guns has nothing at all to do with safety, just as Obamcare had nothing to do with affordable healthcare. The Leftist democrats will never stop their power grab over American citizens. We must have our guns to defend ourself against the leftest regime in power. now.