SPECIAL POST
Diane Feinstein suggested
Sunday that the “weapons of war need to be removed from the streets.” And so begins the call for curtailments of
gun ownership to varying degrees. Some
want guns abolished altogether; this in the face of firm evidence that
communities with a high ownership of guns have low incidence of violent
crime.
To her credit, Feinstein
went only after the high-capacity magazines and fully-automatic weapons. But, would someone else see it a different
way? Just what constitutes a weapon of
terror as opposed to anything else? Is
it a Glock 23? A Remington 22? A 7mm high-powered long rifle? An AR-15?
A .50 caliber weapon? The problem
is that, once you define a weapon as being a weapon of terror that must be
banned, every psycho sicko is going to want one, and their drive will be to go
to Mexico or elsewhere to get it. Then,
we do we fight back with?
And, the arguments begin:
if a .45 caliber semi-automatic pistol is too much, why isn’t a .40 caliber or
a 9mm? Well, someone suggests, we’ll
allow such guns for collectors, but they must be antique and rendered
unusable. What’s an antique… 50 years
old or 51, or 100? Why not 50 years old;
anything over 50 years old left in the desert becomes of historical
significance and can’t be removed.
The fact is that any
infringement on the right to own and bear arms is an infringement on the 2nd
Amendment. This is not only in the
strict and pure sense of the word, but it is true because the definitions of
infringement blur over time and the right gets lost.
On the other hand, can you
imagine that Holmes would have gone into that theater if he knew that everyone
in there was carrying a concealed weapon?
Not even a madman takes those steps.
It appears to me that the answer for gun violence is not to get rid of
the guns, but to require that every able-bodied and sane American carries
one.
That’s MY AMERICAN
OPINION, respectfully submitted.
No comments:
Post a Comment