There were a couple of recent letters to the editor that should concern everyone. One asked “explain to me the need for assault rifles”. Then the author went on to say that only the government forces should have such weapons. The other writer seemed to say that we should ban anything that is not needed for hunting.
Let me remind everyone of a few things. The majority, if not all, of these “ assorted shootings" took place in “gun free zones”. Yes, such places are gun free except the guns evil people use for killing. The term, “gun free zone” would be laughable if it were not such a deadly place to be.
Now, let’s take a trip down memory lane…remember the blissful time when the United States did have a ban on “assault weapons” (1994 to 2004). You know, that was the time when gun violence spiked after the ban was instituted. In fact, after the expiration of the ban, gun deaths dropped in half in ten years. Yes, gun violence has been been less since “assault weapons” were again legal to buy and sell. Check out the FBI site on gun violence if you think I’m making this up.
In spite of high profile shootings, which are a tragedy, most gun deaths are the result of handguns, not “assault weapons”. Where in the outcry about the deaths in Chicago, Baltimore, Los Angles, and other cities? And why is gun violence high in states and cities that have very strict gun laws? Again, the FBI has statistics on this as well.
Most gun deaths are not from being shot by someone else, but rather most shooting deaths are self inflicted. This does need to be addressed. But that is another topic other than to point out that almost no suicides are committed with “assault weapons." The CDC has the statistics on deaths due to suicide, gun-related and otherwise.
There are many other arguments, but I saved the best one for last. The reason the Founding Fathers preserved the specific right of Americans to arm themselves and it was not for hunting. So that argument is out the window. It’s not to guarantee that only the police or Army, or National Guard could be armed. So, that argument is also not relevant. The reason is clear that it was because the government of England was repressive and the Fathers knew that an armed citizenry (militia) is a counter-balance to an armed police state that could evolve in America.
Now, don’t get me wrong, this is not about overthrowing the government, it is about giving government officials pause if they desire to trample on any of the basic rights of the People. It was the codification of the natural law that a person has a natural right to be able to defend themselves, be that from an aggressive animal, a criminal, a rogue government, a foreign invasion, or any other threat.
Lastly, land most importantly, let’s consider the wording of the Constitution of the United States as my summation: 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.
Gotta love that last part, “shall not be infringed”.