Julianne Holland Journal Staff
President Obama has presented America with a plan to create more gun laws. For some, this is a “blessing,” but for others this is viewed as yet another “Obamanation” to our long standing Constitution.
Our country was deeply saddened and disgusted by the horrific tragedy of the Sandy Hook Elementary School massacre – an event that goes beyond our level of comprehension in so many ways. Involving this tragedy in a political debate is repugnant. These children were massacred by a gun that was not licensed to its killer, but obtained from yet another criminal act, theft: making this man a criminal with a gun.
The various law enforcement officers who risked their lives to save these innocent victims came into the building with guns. This is the harsh reality; the only way to stop a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun. Criminals will obtain guns no matter what the restrictions may be. As for law abiding citizens? They are left defenseless. Nine out of 10 criminals prefer gun control, but why? You are simply tipping the scale in their favor: less to worry about when they decide to rob a house or hold up a convenience store.
So before you count your “blessings,” consider this: crimes committed by lawful concealed carry permit holders are virtually nonexistent and about 95 percent of gun crimes have been committed with a gun that was obtained illegally. According to the court case Warren v. District of Columbia, “Police personnel as well as the government employing them owe no duty to victims of criminal acts and thus are not liable for a failure to provide adequate police protection unless a special relationship exists.”
Does this mean that police and emergency personnel will not do everything in their power to protect you? Absolutely not – It simply means that one cannot expect police to be at every given emergency situation at the drop of a dime considering you are not the only human being who may be in danger at that given moment. This may provide some context to prove the repetitive comment that the Second Amendment is no longer a necessary amendment. The Second Amendment was created in the best interest of the people by our founding fathers and it is our duty to protect it. A free society should not need to ask its government for permission to protect itself.
One of the many details in President Obama’s proposal includes a ban on assault weapons. Many citizens jump to the conclusion that these guns are not necessary for the average citizen and that having them remain legal for purchase and use could cause the most dire of consequences. Consider this: assault weapons are very similar to hunting rifles and shotguns. They have the same semiautomatic action and features, but typically pack a smaller punch.
If you don’t believe this, fire three shots from an AR-15, three shots from a Remington .30/06 hunting rifle, and three slug rounds from a Browning shotgun. Then pick which one you would like to get hit with the least. You will be surprised to find that the largest wound inflicted by one shot would be the Browning shotgun, then the Remington rifle, and finally the AR-15 assault rifle. All three guns are semiautomatic and all three guns have similar features. But only one is in danger of being banned: the one with the smallest bullet. It is hard to try and differentiate between types of guns (hunting rifle vs. assault rifle) as they are essentially the same.
Although people feel assault rifles are “scary,” they are really just a more tactical version of a hunting rifle and are utilized in competition. Whatever your reasoning may be – sport, collection, or protection within reasonable limits – it should be your choice which type of firearm you select.
As stated by Keith Morgan, president of the West Virginia Citizens Defense League, “People are killed in greater number by cars, bats, hammers, hands, and feet. Examining the tool and attempting to ban the tool will have absolutely no effect. We’re dealing with a people problem. We’ve got to find a people solution.” I will leave you with three conclusions: more gun control leads to more crime; gun control is not about guns, it is about control; and finally, those who sacrifice their freedoms for the sake of security will lose both.