The Second Amendment debate has hit a fevered pitch in recent weeks after President Barack Obama promised a response following the shooting at a Connecticut elementary school.
The government has turned its focus to making it harder to get guns through increasing efforts with background and mental health checks on gun purchasers.
They’re also looking at banning several types of automatic weapons.
Though both sides of the political aisle have dug their feet in the sand and are not budging on the issue, I think it’s important for our politicians to not look at this issue filled with emotions.
They need to take a closer look at the amendment. It says “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.”
The amendment is clear, the people’s right to bear arms should not be “infringed.”
I argue to ban certain types of weapons results in the government “infringing” on our rights.
While many of us in the Vandalia area might not feel like we need automatic weapons to protect ourselves where we live, this is not the case for those living in the inner city.
If I owned a business or were living in a crime-ridden city, I know I would want the best style of weapon I could find to protect myself.
Since the criminals would still find a way to get what would become “illegal” weapons, many would be unable to adequately protect themselves if they were unable to have similar weapons.
Though our government is not run by a dictator, though some might argue with me, we need to always be on alert that some day our country could be changed to become like a socialistic society.
What would you want to have at your bed side if some day the government comes beating on your door and demands things from your family? You might have no way to truly protect yourself.
For example, the Department of Homeland Security has recently had a purchase order brought to light for buying 7,000 assault weapons. So it’s okay for the government to have this style of weapon but apparently not any of us.
This could be much like Adolf Hitler changing Germany in the 1930’s.
A law passed during his time restricted ownership of firearms to “…persons whose trustworthiness is not in question and who can show a need for a (gun) permit.”
I don’t know how you would enforce this type of law and I’m sure many local law enforcement would end of up prioritizing other types of laws over this one.
Crazy thing is the same politicians wanting the bans are the same ones who have flip-flopped about their own protection through the years.
One example of this came from Rep. Dianne Feinstein (D).
In 1995, she did an interview and said if she would have received 51 votes in the U.S. Senate, she would have passed a law banning all guns.
But in the same year, she testified about how her family was the target of terrorism 20 years prior.
She touted her conceal carry permit. She said “I made the determination that if someone was going to try and take me out, I was going to take them with me.”
This is an intense issue filled with passion, especially after the tragic event in December.
But now more than ever, it’s important for Americans to stand up for the rights our Founding Fathers had the wisdom to put on paper so many years ago. There’s a reason why our constitution has been able to stand the test of time and it’s important that trend continues.Sorry, there are no polls available at the moment.