This is a work in progress so I will update it from time to time.
1. My views on the second amendment.
I'll start off by saying I don't believe I have the right to own a gun just because the constitution says I can. Regardless of where you're from I feel the right to gun ownership is equal.
Quote:
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.
I would like to start this part off with a comic from Terminal Lance. I bring up this comic because the part in red is often interpreted as the National Guard. Just because something is government regulated doesn't mean it's well regulated. In fact it seems a lot of stuff government regulated is pretty stupid.
This is an important part here. Why was the Constitution written? We broke away from the English government and wanted to build our own. Why did we rebel? The term taxation without representation gets thrown around a lot. We had to pay taxes to the English government but we didn't get adequate representation in the government we had to pay taxes to. The revolutionaries believed they did not live in a free state. When we made our own government the founding fathers didn't believe our government would never become corrupt. Having an armed population reduces the chances of corruption though. If you're aware that oppressing the people can lead to them fighting and overthrowing you are you as likely to oppress them?
This is how I figure it. They didn't say the right of the military, law enforcement, or the national guard. They said the right of the people. This goes back to the part in red regarding a well regulated militia.
2. You don't need a gun.
This argument doesn't convince me that something should be banned. If you think long and hard about it just about anything can be banned because you don't need it. You don't need marijuana so why legalize it? You don't need tobacco or alcohol why not ban them? You don't need trans fats, high fructose corn syrup, large sodas, and big candy bars. Let's ban them. That argument on its own has no value to me.
3. People with guns can do bad things.
Good point, but people without guns can do bad things. The highest speed limit I've seen is 70mph but most cars can go up to 120 if not higher. Someone could potentially drive 50mph over the speed limit. People can get really drunk and drive recklessly over the speed limit endangering their own lives and the lives of those around them. I am referring to Ryan Dunn here. I'm not trying to take a cheap shot here, but while his death was tragic he made some bad decisions. Would you personally want to be considered a potential risk to do the same thing just because he did? The same logic applies here. Cars shouldn't be allowed to go over 70 and alcohol shouldn't be produced. That sounds pretty crazy doesn't it?
4. If you ban guns criminals can't get them.
A. Yes they can. We tried banning alcohol in the 1920's. Marijuana and other drugs are still illegal yet people are still getting their hands on them. People can make guns themselves. This guy made one at home. If a resourceful person puts their mind to it they can still make their own.
B. There are millions of guns out there already. Most states don't have mandatory gun registration. The states with mandatory registration can trace serial numbers to try and get guns. They will get a few of them, but probably not all of them. Some law abiding citizens with unregistered guns will turn their guns in. If you illegally have a gun and/or you plan on committing a crime with your gun what motivation would you have to give up your gun? If the law abiding citizens have their guns removed then criminals can still be armed while people around them are unarmed.
5. Some people shouldn't have guns.
I actually agree with this. I do support suicide. That whole "my body my choice" thing is used to defend abortion. Similar logic is used to support alcohol and drug use as well as the right to eat whatever they want to eat. If someone wants to destroy themselves I don't have the right to tell them they can't.
That being said if someone is a threat to others I don't think they should have a gun. When you buy a gun from a shop they usually run a background check on you. History in a mental institution and criminal history come up on the background check. I've heard some people suggest you should have a mental evaluation before you are allowed to own a gun. This is a nice thought but I do not support it. I am not convinced mental evaluation will stop future criminals without a current record from getting a gun. I also do not trust a government to be honest about it. It would be pretty easy for a government to make whoever performs the evaluation to automatically fail every applicant as a means to stop people from getting guns.
6. Assault Weapons & The Media
This is a term I really don't like. The news and anti gun people often use trigger words that make a weapon sound scary. They will often call a gun an assault rifle or a military rifle. The term "fully automatic", which I will cover further in the next section, is also thrown around quite a bit. Terms like "bulletproof vest" and "full body armor" get used a lot too. For example there was the shooting in Colorado back in July. The shooter wore a tactical vest which the news called bull body armor. This tactical vest was not armor. It was not kevlar. It wasn't bulletproof. It was a vest made out of nylon that had a bunch of pockets on it for holding ammunition or other objects. If that vest gets hit by a bullet that bullet would go right through. What I am trying to get at here is not to take the media too seriously when they use these trigger words. They frequently have the facts wrong.
7. Semi/Fully automatic weapons should be banned
First I would like to define the difference between semi and fully automatic.
If you can't view the video for some reason I will sum it up here. An automatic weapon is also sometimes referred to as an auto loading weapon. That means when the weapon fires it automatically loads the next round. Automatics come in full and semi modes. Fully automatic means that you hold the trigger down and it will keep firing and reloading until you run out of ammunition or you let go of the trigger. Semi automatic means when you pull the trigger it fires and it loads the next cartridge once. To fire again you need to let go of the trigger again. If you hold a semi auto trigger down it will still only fire once then reload and sit doing nothing.
Secondly I would like to point out the current legal status of both. In the US fully automatic weapons are legal IF they were manufactured before 1986. If you have a semi automatic weapon that was converted to full auto the conversion had to be done before 1986. Anything manufactured and/or converted after that isn't legal for civilians to own. The news will often talk about weapons being fully automatic even if the firearm really wasn't. Semi automatic weapons are perfectly legal though some semi automatic designs have been banned because they are easier to convert to fully automatic.
So finally we get to my views on banning automatics. I personally don't care for fully automatic fire so chances that I would want to own one are slim. Just because I don't want one doesn't mean I think others shouldn't be allowed to have them. I do, however, realize that if you want to shoot a massive crowd of people and kill as many as possible a full auto weapon is the best way to do it. Regulating them probably will save a lot of lives. I've got no ideas what I think good regulation is here.
Semi automatics I think shouldn't be banned or restricted. As I mentioned before this is simply a loading mechanism. This mechanism doesn't make a gun more powerful. You can have a ruger 10/22 which is a semi automatic .22 rifle. You get shot with that in the torso and you're pretty badly injured and you might die. That's a semi automatic that isn't very powerful. On the other hand you can have a German Mauser 98. That's an 8mm bolt action rifle. If you don't know what a bolt action is that's a loading system where you load a new bullet every shot manually. Anyway if you get shot in the torso with that Mauser it's all over. That will destroy you. The point I try to make here is that it is the power of the ammunition that determines how powerful a gun is rather than the loading system.
I understand reasoning behind banning semi automatics. Semi autos can be converted to full auto if someone knows what they're doing. It's also a lot easier to shoot up a mall with a semi auto than it is with a bolt action. The problem I have here is that back in point 4 I showed someone who made their own gun so if you're really dedicated to shooting someone you will find a way to make it work.
8. Let the police protect you.
I've heard the argument that if someone mugs you you're stupid for walking in a bad part of town and/or you should just give them what they want then call the police and let them handle it. While that is an option it's not an option I support. You can still do that if you want. I think the fear of coming up against a potentially armed victim is a better deterrent than the police possibly catching you.
My big problem is police response. You have to call 911, explain your problem and location, wait for them to contact police dispatch, let dispatch contact the nearest cop, and wait for them to get to you. In some situations police have been known to take over half an hour or even not show up at all. It's really easier to pull out a gun and defend yourself. If someone is trying to kill you they're not going to just sit around and wait for you to call the police. If someone is trying to just kill you waiting for police response can be the difference between life and death.
Another thought is if nobody has any guns the bad guys will not have guns either. In theory fighting back against someone who has a knife gives you better chances than fighting against someone with a gun. The physically disabled are at a huge disadvantage there though. It's easier to fight back with a gun than with a knife.
