I know I will get raked over the coals for saying this, but…I gotta.
Gun laws get enacted due to irresponsible people’s actions. Politicians and state leaders know that they can not enact PEOPLE CONTROL LAWS so they enact GUN CONTROL LAWS. Also, our government doesn’t want certain types of weapons available because they don’t want our police forces and military to be overpowered and outshot by some nut or nuts. We saw this happen years ago in a shoot-out in California…
Do I believe in my Second Amendment right? You better believe it, I definitely do. Do I have a desire or even a REASON to own a true assault rifle or military grade weapon? No. And is there any REAL reason for ordinary citizens to own an assault rifle? Doubtful.
As for my Second Amendment right being taken away from me due to a President in office? It won’t happen. If you can pry my fingers off of my weapons, that’s when you can have them.
They are ALL people control laws.
That is not how rights work.
I can think of a thousand burning reasons why I deserve to own belt fed weapons, mortars, claymores and mines in my rose garden! Not to mention the concertina nato razor wire surrounding my castle! It’s 2020 on the precipice socialism!
Never say never, because never happens when it’s never supposed to happen!
Coronavirus! That was science fiction til January 28th 2020. Can executive order deprive you of your weapon? Can a little man with a world vision kill more than six million people? You’re damn right they can take them, even while your hands are still warm! Never underestimate the enemy!
No worries, gotta mail in ballot, I’ll vote for you!
This is so often repeated that I find it difficult to believe that you haven’t yet understood.
The 2A is not about hunting, collecting, shooting for sport, or even self-protection.
Well, perhaps you do understand but have yet to admit it to yourself. The 2A was written Explicitly for this reason. The people are the government. Those in elected positions are NOT our ‘Leaders’, our ‘Bosses’ or any other word of praise that some may like to use. THEY work for US.
When they overstep their bounds, it is not only the right of the citizenry to take corrective action, it is our Duty.
If you have never seen the Mel Gibson movie The Patriot, I highly recommend that you do.
Thanks for the “offer” but I will be voting in person!
Far too many people do not understand this. Those in Congress, the Senate, and the White House are not our leaders, they report to us, the people.
I definitely appreciate the opinions expressed and shared. People elected to public office are supposed to support the rights of the people of this great country, and some do while others fall short. Those elected are NOT our bosses (yes, they work for us) BUT they are sworn in to preserve our freedoms and act as leaders and speakers for the population as a whole.
Laws are enacted (for the most part) to help keep our citizens safe, and to also keep our country from becoming a lawless, chaotic, and “do anything you want to do” society. When automobiles started to become the new normal over horse-drawn carriages, for example, laws had to be enacted to regulate the drivers and how they could operate safely, for the benefit of the drivers and all citizens as a whole.
Our representation is supposed to be voiced by elected officials who have the task of interpretation of laws enacted, and further enforcement or denials is left to the courts and our Supreme Court to rule on.
I pray for our country and elected officials, for the good of this great nation we call home, and for intelligent decisions to be made that affect us all.
When it comes to the movie “The Patriot” it is a very good movie…and it shows valuable insight into the freedom that we can have, or lose.
Agreed sir. I would then submit that it would be hard enough to resist tyranny with the AR-15 still legal for us. Imagine how much harder it would be if we faced it with only hunting guns.
The Founders understood this fact. They lived it. If any of us think it can’t happen to the U.S., they need to study the history of the last century more carefully. Terrible things often have happened to unarmed people. This is a fact.
“Common Sense Gun Control” is a smokescreen and a terrible deception. The real objective is to disarm us. Then and only then can we truly be controlled. Citizens are armed, subjects are not.
^^^ that is in direct contradiction to…
The exact reason for the second amendment is so that the populace is not defenseless against a government that “has all the guns”. And every gun law passed just widens the gap until eventually, if anti-gunners have their way, we don’t even have muskets.
This is a common misconception (I will say misinformed). Average Joe Citizen can not get their hands on a “military grade weapon”. Good luck getting an M4 or an M249. Those are actual “assault rifles” and “military grade weapons”. So by that standard alone, we have plenty enough gun laws already 
Using the current and expanding definition (more on that below) by anti-gun groups of an “assault weapon”, it is basically any semi-auto rifle that even remotely looks like something used by a military. Things like an AR15, etc.
So, most likely the MOST IMPORTANT factor in banning assault weapons is… It won’t make a lick of difference in gun violence in this country. Anti-gun defined “assault weapons” like an AR15 are rarely (if ever) used in suicides, which make up 2/3rds of gun violence deaths. Murders by any rifle including bolt actions, lever actions, single shot, AND so-called “assault weapons” cumulatively total on average < 200-400 per year (out of usually over 10k total firearm deaths). On average, TWICE that number of people are murdered by bare hands and feet. 4x to 5x that number are stabbed to death every year. The vast majority (understatement) of murders are perpetuated by gangs and other criminals using handguns. Anti-gunners claim the AR15 is the weapon of choice for mass shooters… FBI mass shootings data shows the number is a roughly 50/50 split between handguns and rifles (again, all rifles not just AR15s) with a sprinkling of revolvers and shotguns mixed in.
And anti-gunners know this and are changing the definition. You will note, in many recent proposed assault weapons bans at not just federal but state and local levels they are expanding this definition. In Virginia’s last legislative session the proposed assault weapons ban would have labeled as an “assault weapon” pretty much every common semi-auto rifle, pistol, and shotgun commonly available to citizens today. That is not an exaggeration, and this is not the only state that has had similar proposed language.
So when you cast a vote that says “I agree with assault weapons bans” and you are thinking that only applies to “military grade weapons” don’t be surprised when your Glock 19 (one of, if not the most commonly sold pistol in the USA), your Ruger Mini-14, or your Berretta 1301 fall under the ban hammer too.
I’ve rambled on this one for probably too long, but have a read on this article which brings up many points on “Why Does Anyone Need an AR-15?”
They won’t pry them from your fingers. They will:
- ban them from sale, so you can’t buy any more and neither can your kids or grandkids
- ban parts from sale, so when yours breaks or wears out they can’t be fixed
- ban/tax/limit ammo, so you can’t use it if you can’t feed it
- make what’s left super expensive so Average Joe Citizen can’t afford it anymore (but you know who can? Rich and Elite, including politicians who voted it all away)
- eventually “buy back” what was never theirs, and make it illegal to own
- once it’s illegal, eventually everyone who has one will turn them in during “amnesty” periods because the thought of being caught with it for normal law-abiding citizens just isn’t worth it.
We all have that same goal 
Good Day to you! It is a pleasure to hear back from you, and reassuring that you have the knowledge and opinions and are willing to share those with me and this community. Although I don’t completely agree with everything you present, I appreciate your viewpoints. It would be my hope that someday, you and I (and other members too) could all get together and talk and hash out differences and present the positive changes that we could possibly make with the help of our elected officials…all for the better good, and in support of our rights as citizens.
It would be an honor for me to do this with you and I do salute your insight, beliefs, and rational knowledge!
…of the people, by the people, for the people.
Gun Control made easy. Use both hands.
Common sense gun control . It’s call a little education
Lets say I had motive to ban disinfectants. Let’s also say I hated bleach especially , but hated the use of all disinfectants because they were unnatural, hindered natural processes of decay, but most of all, because I just really thought a powerful chemical like bleach was just too dangerous in the hands of everyday people, and I wanted it controlled so that only government could have it, or use it.
Imagine the case I could make against disinfectants if I wanted too. … Imagine the compelling case I could make to vilify such a product, Imagine all the examples of misuse and tragedy I could dredge up, if I were so inclined. Then imagine the affects of a carefully crafted media assault on disinfectants, especially, as the chosen poster child for the cause, bleach.
But, you say, that would only make sense to a person if that person didn’t understand the purpose, role, and invisible benefits of disinfectants, perhaps specially so with bleach. … yes, exactly.
The gun control debate is much like this. One must understand the reason for, and the role of, such a thing as a gun or a disinfectant. Additionally, one must understand the benefits, often in the form of things that have been prevented or mitigated by the proper use, and understand also that ,while some regulation and safety measures are important, it is the right, if not duty, of everyone to have access, and know how to use, such things.
Lastly, imagine the cost to people, society, general health and well being, and a host of other less often thought of consequences, if such a misguided crusade were to be successful.
Crime and disease are nowhere near so fully controlled or diminished as to make it wise to give up our right to fight either one. It would be, in my opinion, the height of foolishness to suppose that we should expect good results if we did.
But if you don’t understand the benefits, role, and purposes , or if you felt modernity had somehow made the world so much safer a place that you need not worry about crime or disease,- someone, with a carefully crafted campaign, just might convince you to give up your defenses.
Calling something “common sense” does not actually mean the idea is possessed of any measure of either.
