OKAY, so this is a bit of a long read, but I hope you read it all and give me your input… if you dont care, ur probably bound to be a victim, and you dont stand for anything this country believes in.
Why do we need guns? I will start with this. The gun, like any other tool in history, has been invented, cannot be un-invented, has been here since the 13th century in concept, and is here to stay. Criminals will always have guns, no matter what the law says, just as they had alcohol from 1920 - 1933 under the sumptuary laws of prohibition, just as they have marijuana, cocaine, and any other “illegal” drug today. The fact is, that just because you “ban” something doesn’t mean that you have gotten rid of it. So, with that behind us, we should understand that criminals do now and will always have access to weapons of all sorts, guns included, and some countries even nuclear weapons. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fU4sVQV3Lhk
Shall we ban knives, they are also a weapon that can kill others. There were an estimated 6,420,000 car accidents in the US in 2005, resulting in 42,636 car accident deaths. An average of 115 persons die each day in car accidents in the United States –– one every 13 minutes. Shall we ban automobiles? Ten to twenty people die every year as a result of dog bites in the U.S., are those lives worth any less than someone who loses their life to a gun related incident? Shall we ban the ownership of pets? The point is that guns are not the problem. A society that is violent by nature is the problem. Getting rid of guns to solve violence will just disable law-abiding citizens to defend themselves, as we have already established that you can never really “get rid of all” of anything that has been invented. To elaborate on this even further, lets take for example Chicago, Illionis, where Barrack Obama was a “community organizer”. From January to July this year, 291 people were murdered in Chicago, when comparitively, 221 Americans lost their lives in Iraq. Keep in mind that Chicago has had a “ban on handguns” since 1982. As of October 25, 2008, Chicago has been named the murder capitol of the United States, second to none. Why is no one questioning the lack of results that Obama has achieved in his own district? While he makes television appearances, citizens of his home city fill the streets every night armed to the teeth and have Wild West style shoot-outs. Obama has criticized Bush for the results in Iraq, shouldn’t Obama then be held to the same standard in Chicago?
Any human being is entitled by the grace of God to protect his or her life or the lives of others, after all, isn’t that one of the many functions of a military going to war? The necessary taking of lives to ensure the safety of others? Fortunately for those of us living in the United States of America, we have a constitutional right, that is a legal right, to possess and carry weapons (i.e., “keep and bear arms”) in case of confrontation. Codification of the right to keep and bear arms into the Bill of Rights was influenced by a fear that the federal government would disarm the people in order to impose rule through a standing army or select milita, since history had shown taking away the people’s arms and making it an offense for people to keep them was the way tyrants eliminated resistance to suppression of political opponents.This calls to mind a recent speech Barrack Obama made: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tt2yGzHfy7s
As far disarming the people: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q-4jqZSEo0Q
In the late 1990’s, Washington D.C. led the United States in having the highest murder rates, they too had a ban on ownership of handguns. Are you noticing a trend here, people that aren’t legally able to defend themselves with necessary force? Criminals in these areas where these “bans” are in effect obviously realize that their victims will likely be unarmed, and therefore, defenseless. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C0vyxgJLJVA
In District of Columbia v. Heller (June 26, 2008), the Supreme Court ruled that self defense is a central component of the right. Barrack Obama supports banning that right, thus, he supports proposing laws that are unconstitutional, which of our constitutional rights will he want to do away with next?
Now I know this reading is a bit long, but stick with me, we’ve got one more point to cover. What exactly is an “assault weapon”? The term assault weapon might be derived from confusion with the term assault rifle. Before the term was hijacked by misguided politicians in 1994, an assault rifle was defined as a small military rifle, capable of fully automatic or burst fire. The weapons banned in 1994 were semiautomatics (one round fired per trigger pull) that had been on the civilian market for more than 30 years. The claim that assault weapons are the first choice of criminals is blatantly incorrect. A quick check of the FBI’s Uniform Crime Statistics reveals that in 2004, the formerly banned weapons were used (and were used before the ban) in less than 1 percent of crimes committed. FBI statistics also show that before the ban in 1993, and after the ban in 1994, only three police officers were killed each year by .223 or 7.62x39 mm rifle rounds, the rounds shot by the AR-15 and AK-47 clones, by far the most common of the 1994 banned semiautomatics.Gun owners are often asked why they care about owning guns that are widely believed to have no sporting purpose. Even if it were true that these firearms held no sporting value, the question would still be simple to answer: More than 200 years ago our forefathers wrote the Constitution of the United States of America, which is the supreme law of the United States. Two years later James Madison introduced the Bill of Rights to the First United States Congress. The Bill of Rights limits the powers of the federal government of the United States, protecting the rights of all citizens, residents and visitors on United States territory. The Bill of Rights consists of the first ten amendments to the United States Constitution, one of which is the Second Amendment, which, contrary to what some believe, has nothing to do with hunting. Our forefathers did not keep their Kentucky Long Rifles around after the war for plinking cans. They were there to defend their newly won freedom. While we may believe that America’s freedom and strength will be around forever, history suggests otherwise. A simple and now supposedly harmless gun ban could be very detrimental in our gravest hour.
Maybe we should ask Rep. Carolyn MacCarthy, she’s the Democratic congresswoman who introduced the AWB (Assault Weapon’s Ban) in 2007 to include weapons that had a “pistol grip”, a “forward grip” and a “barrel shroud”. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9rGpykAX1fo
For educational purposes, a barrel shroud is nothing more than a ventilated covering attached to the barrel of a firearm, that partially or completely encircles the barrel, that increases the surface area of the barrel assembly to allow for greater cooling. Slides, extensions of the stock that do not fully encircle the barrel, and the receiver (or frame) of a firearm itself are generally not considered barrel shrouds. Barrel shrouds are commonly featured on machine guns to prevent the barrel from overheating during periods of sustained rapid fire. Barrel shrouds have no effect on the ballistic performance of the firearm on to which they are installed, other than preventing a loss of accuracy caused by a barrel that has overheated. Barrel shrouds were included in the now expired Federal Assault Weapons Ban on the list of features which could qualify a pistol as an assault weapon. This legislation, and other pieces of legislation derived from the federal ban, included the misconception that the barrel shroud is designed to be used as a hand hold, and that such a use would shield the operator from the heat generated by the weapon. This is not true. Since the barrel shroud is designed to dissipate heat, using it as a grip during rapid fire would cause heat to transfer to the hand and likely cause severe burns.
Now if our own representatives, that is, those persons chosen to speak on our behalf, do not even fully understand the legislation that they are introducing to become law, then I can certainly hope by writing this that at least you the reader will become educated on some facts regarding the constitutional rights and freedoms that we the American people enjoy and hopefully dispel, or alleviate some of these myths some would have you believe, that “banning guns” is the answer to stopping gun violence, as it in fact, has a directly adverse effect as can plainly be seen by the examples of Chicago and Washington D.C.
What gun banners need to realize is that (1) gun control is ineffective in its goals, and (2) the United States can be conquered internally by an erosion of rights, something our founding fathers always feared.
Please watch this video one more time to make sure you fully understand how gun free zones work: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C0vyxgJLJVA