Banning Rifles?
by Kerby Anderson: Proponents of gun control would like to ban (or at least significantly restrict) the manufacture, sale, and distribution of semi-automatic rifles. They usually refer to them as “assault rifles” and “weapons of war” in order to enhance their argument. Lawyers for the cause argue that even though the Heller case decided by the Supreme Court prevented governments from banning handguns, it still might allow banning other weapons like rifles.
Most supporters of the Second Amendment argue that it protects an individual’s right to self-defense and also protects citizens against state tyranny. In the interest of time, let’s just focus on that first idea.
The Second Amendment exists so that you can protect yourself against robbers and terrorists. That means we can reject the idea that the amendment only applies to muskets and flintlock pistols. Any intruder will have firepower much greater than that. In fact, it is likely that the robber or mugger will have a semiautomatic handgun or a semiautomatic rifle.
By the way, that is one reason why most police no longer carry revolvers. They want to have a gun that has a high-capacity magazine. Why? Because that is what bad guys usually have. Police want to have in their hands enough ammunition and firepower to counter what will be in the hands of a criminal.
You really cannot just ban or restrict an AR15 without affecting all other rifles that use high-capacity magazines. And those same types of magazines are also found in other handguns and rifles. If you also ban them, you are just left with revolvers, pump-action shotguns, and bolt-action rifles. A law enforcement officer or a homeowner with these few weapons would be outgunned by any criminal.
The Second Amendment is about more than just self-defense. But that is reason enough to see the difficulty in banning or restricting semi-automatic rifles.
--------------
Kerby Anderson is a radio talk show host heard on numerous stations via the Point of View Network endorsed by Dr. Bill Smith, Editor, ARRA News Service
Tags: Kerby Anderson, Viewpoints, Point of View, Banning Rifles? To share or post to your site, click on "Post Link". Please mention / link to the ARRA News Service and "Like" Facebook Page - Thanks!
Most supporters of the Second Amendment argue that it protects an individual’s right to self-defense and also protects citizens against state tyranny. In the interest of time, let’s just focus on that first idea.
The Second Amendment exists so that you can protect yourself against robbers and terrorists. That means we can reject the idea that the amendment only applies to muskets and flintlock pistols. Any intruder will have firepower much greater than that. In fact, it is likely that the robber or mugger will have a semiautomatic handgun or a semiautomatic rifle.
By the way, that is one reason why most police no longer carry revolvers. They want to have a gun that has a high-capacity magazine. Why? Because that is what bad guys usually have. Police want to have in their hands enough ammunition and firepower to counter what will be in the hands of a criminal.
You really cannot just ban or restrict an AR15 without affecting all other rifles that use high-capacity magazines. And those same types of magazines are also found in other handguns and rifles. If you also ban them, you are just left with revolvers, pump-action shotguns, and bolt-action rifles. A law enforcement officer or a homeowner with these few weapons would be outgunned by any criminal.
The Second Amendment is about more than just self-defense. But that is reason enough to see the difficulty in banning or restricting semi-automatic rifles.
--------------
Kerby Anderson is a radio talk show host heard on numerous stations via the Point of View Network endorsed by Dr. Bill Smith, Editor, ARRA News Service
Tags: Kerby Anderson, Viewpoints, Point of View, Banning Rifles? To share or post to your site, click on "Post Link". Please mention / link to the ARRA News Service and "Like" Facebook Page - Thanks!
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home