I am sick to death of you fools and your incessant quibbling over how much to impede or restrict my rights. My rights, the rights of all Americans, are guaranteed by our Constitution; no, not guaranteed, but recognized as--in the words of our Founders--“inalienable.” This means that our rights are intrinsically our property, as much as our own hearts, hands, brains, or any other part of our bodies. You cannot legislate away our rights any more than you can legislate away parts of our bodies.
Lately there has been a spurt of large-scale gun-related violent incidents. While my heart goes out to those who’ve lost loved ones, to blame guns and legal, non-violent gun-owners does nothing to solve this problem. You cannot bring back the dead by writing more bad gun law. Connecticut is a very gun-restrictive state; clearly, this did not deter a young man whose goal was contrary to the law to begin with. Sandy Hook Elementary was a “gun-free” zone; clearly, this did not prevent a young man whose heart was bent on violence against the innocent. The Aurora, Colorado theater was also a “gun-free” zone; clearly this did nothing to prevent another disturbed young man bent on ill intent, and whose apartment was littered with bombs and booby-traps (which are also “banned”).
You so-called “lawmakers” look at these incidents and see the weapon used as the problem. A gun is but an inanimate object, with no inherent evil or malice of its own. Blaming guns--and by extension, all gun owners--is like blaming the Mitsubishi Zero and all pilots for the Pearl Harbor attack. There are many other coincidental factors that could also be examined: most of these shooters are young men between 18-25; most of these incidents occur in “gun-free” zones. While it is ridiculous to posit the “ban” of 18-25 year-old males, it is equally simplistic and naive to try to ban certain types of firearms; firearms and firearm owners are no more to blame for the actions of a few nuts than the entire 18-25 year-old male demographic. Why not look at the effectiveness, or lack thereof, of so-called “gun-free” zones?
The ideal environment for a shooter is one where there is a large number of easily accessible targets, and a minimum of resistance; a “target-rich” environment. In your infinite wisdom, you have established that certain areas should be off-limits to guns. So, you create a paradigm where all of our children are in these buildings, which are largely unprotected, and then tell people that they cannot carry guns in these buildings. Has it ever occurred to you that we might want our children to be safe? Has it ever occurred to you that a parent carrying a gun in a school does so because he or she wishes to safeguard that which is most precious to him or her? Did you think for once that arbitrarily naming an area a “gun-free” zone would deter criminals from entering with a gun to do harm? Obviously, if a person’s intent is to kill, then a stupid sign isn’t even an afterthought. Frankly, I am surprised that there haven’t been more school shootings. I cringe every time I see that idiotic reminder that guns are not allowed at my children’s schools; there is no one there to protect my children if some nutjob with a gun, or a bomb, or poison gas, etc. decides to make them a sad statistic. I want as many teachers armed as possible at my children’s schools.
“Gun-free” zones should be eradicated. It is both ignorant and offensive that you would assert that all people wishing to carry a gun do so out of malice; ignorant because you assume that the absence of guns guarantees safety, and offensive because you presume that anyone carrying a gun wishes to cause harm to all of those around. As a responsible adult and father, I carry a gun to protect my loved ones from the evil people of the world, not because I would wish anyone else harm. Laws only affect those with a predilection for following them to begin with; laws do not affect those who would visit ill upon others. Seeking to ban certain weapons will only affect the law-abiding, and will have zero net affect on crime or shooting spree statistics. If the intent is to prevent shooting sprees like those we’ve seen in the last two years, there are more effective ways to prevent those crimes. You’re supposed to be the best and brightest among us; surely you can craft laws that might actually have an affect on this sort of sensationalist crime, e.g. laws which spell out the consequences for a gun-owner whose weapon is used in the commission of a crime.
Setting aside the fact that “gun-free” zones are “pie-in-the-sky” wishful thinking, your stated desires to disarm the American public indicate a naked hubris that should be alarming to us. We are no longer co-equal citizens in this republic, but sovereigns and subjects, kings and peasants. You grant us our rights, and then expect us to be thankful for not infringing upon them further. Our country was not founded in this fashion. Our right to self-defense is as unimpeachable as the teeth and claws of a tiger. The world is full of evil people, bad actors who will stop at nearly nothing to achieve their aim. What do you say to the rancher who lives on the Mexico border, whose land is invaded by the drug cartels every night? That he can’t have a high-capacity, semiautomatic rifle to defend his land? That the Border Patrol, which is already stretched thin, will take care of it? Tell him to move? What do you say to the single mother who lives in the seedier part of Chicago? That she can’t have a 9mm pistol to defend herself and her children in one of the most dangerous cities in the country (a perfect example of the fallacy of “gun-free” zone laws)? You have NO RIGHT to infringe upon our right to self-defense.
Lastly, the Second Amendment does not exist to protect the rights of of hunters and enthusiasts, and since most of you are lawyers or poli/sci majors, I know that you know this. The Second Amendment exists so that, should it become necessary, we can protect ourselves from you. My right to keep and bear arms is not up for negotiation.
Lately there has been a spurt of large-scale gun-related violent incidents. While my heart goes out to those who’ve lost loved ones, to blame guns and legal, non-violent gun-owners does nothing to solve this problem. You cannot bring back the dead by writing more bad gun law. Connecticut is a very gun-restrictive state; clearly, this did not deter a young man whose goal was contrary to the law to begin with. Sandy Hook Elementary was a “gun-free” zone; clearly, this did not prevent a young man whose heart was bent on violence against the innocent. The Aurora, Colorado theater was also a “gun-free” zone; clearly this did nothing to prevent another disturbed young man bent on ill intent, and whose apartment was littered with bombs and booby-traps (which are also “banned”).
You so-called “lawmakers” look at these incidents and see the weapon used as the problem. A gun is but an inanimate object, with no inherent evil or malice of its own. Blaming guns--and by extension, all gun owners--is like blaming the Mitsubishi Zero and all pilots for the Pearl Harbor attack. There are many other coincidental factors that could also be examined: most of these shooters are young men between 18-25; most of these incidents occur in “gun-free” zones. While it is ridiculous to posit the “ban” of 18-25 year-old males, it is equally simplistic and naive to try to ban certain types of firearms; firearms and firearm owners are no more to blame for the actions of a few nuts than the entire 18-25 year-old male demographic. Why not look at the effectiveness, or lack thereof, of so-called “gun-free” zones?
The ideal environment for a shooter is one where there is a large number of easily accessible targets, and a minimum of resistance; a “target-rich” environment. In your infinite wisdom, you have established that certain areas should be off-limits to guns. So, you create a paradigm where all of our children are in these buildings, which are largely unprotected, and then tell people that they cannot carry guns in these buildings. Has it ever occurred to you that we might want our children to be safe? Has it ever occurred to you that a parent carrying a gun in a school does so because he or she wishes to safeguard that which is most precious to him or her? Did you think for once that arbitrarily naming an area a “gun-free” zone would deter criminals from entering with a gun to do harm? Obviously, if a person’s intent is to kill, then a stupid sign isn’t even an afterthought. Frankly, I am surprised that there haven’t been more school shootings. I cringe every time I see that idiotic reminder that guns are not allowed at my children’s schools; there is no one there to protect my children if some nutjob with a gun, or a bomb, or poison gas, etc. decides to make them a sad statistic. I want as many teachers armed as possible at my children’s schools.
“Gun-free” zones should be eradicated. It is both ignorant and offensive that you would assert that all people wishing to carry a gun do so out of malice; ignorant because you assume that the absence of guns guarantees safety, and offensive because you presume that anyone carrying a gun wishes to cause harm to all of those around. As a responsible adult and father, I carry a gun to protect my loved ones from the evil people of the world, not because I would wish anyone else harm. Laws only affect those with a predilection for following them to begin with; laws do not affect those who would visit ill upon others. Seeking to ban certain weapons will only affect the law-abiding, and will have zero net affect on crime or shooting spree statistics. If the intent is to prevent shooting sprees like those we’ve seen in the last two years, there are more effective ways to prevent those crimes. You’re supposed to be the best and brightest among us; surely you can craft laws that might actually have an affect on this sort of sensationalist crime, e.g. laws which spell out the consequences for a gun-owner whose weapon is used in the commission of a crime.
Setting aside the fact that “gun-free” zones are “pie-in-the-sky” wishful thinking, your stated desires to disarm the American public indicate a naked hubris that should be alarming to us. We are no longer co-equal citizens in this republic, but sovereigns and subjects, kings and peasants. You grant us our rights, and then expect us to be thankful for not infringing upon them further. Our country was not founded in this fashion. Our right to self-defense is as unimpeachable as the teeth and claws of a tiger. The world is full of evil people, bad actors who will stop at nearly nothing to achieve their aim. What do you say to the rancher who lives on the Mexico border, whose land is invaded by the drug cartels every night? That he can’t have a high-capacity, semiautomatic rifle to defend his land? That the Border Patrol, which is already stretched thin, will take care of it? Tell him to move? What do you say to the single mother who lives in the seedier part of Chicago? That she can’t have a 9mm pistol to defend herself and her children in one of the most dangerous cities in the country (a perfect example of the fallacy of “gun-free” zone laws)? You have NO RIGHT to infringe upon our right to self-defense.
Lastly, the Second Amendment does not exist to protect the rights of of hunters and enthusiasts, and since most of you are lawyers or poli/sci majors, I know that you know this. The Second Amendment exists so that, should it become necessary, we can protect ourselves from you. My right to keep and bear arms is not up for negotiation.
