A Dangerous Trend
I try very hard to stay away from politics. I actually hate politics. HATE THEM! I digress...
In a discussion with my dad last weekend the topic of gun control came up. Apparently there are people in Government who, if they had their way, would seek to ban all non-hunting firearms, which could possibly then lead to a complete ban on all firearms. These people want this despite our constitutional right as Americans to "bear arms".
If I break this down, this would mean that Hilary Clinton or Nancy Pelosi or someone else could come to my home and take my personal firearms, leaving me unable to protect my family or defend my home against the "bad guys". The "bad guys" are going to have guns. They are going to continue doing bad. They just are. Why do these people in government want to leave me defenseless?
I was reading the news today and came across a quote from John Edwards. I noticed something familiar in his quote. He was talking about the middle-east:
"There are other emerging fissures, as well. The aggressively photogenic John Edwards was cruising along, detailing his litany of liberal causes last week until, during question time, he invoked the "I" word — Israel. Perhaps the greatest short-term threat to world peace, Edwards remarked, was the possibility that Israel would bomb Iran's nuclear facilities. As a chill descended on the gathering, the Edwards event was brought to a polite close."
Israel has done nothing but defend themselves. When they have attacked another nation it has been in self-defense. How could Mr. Edwards label Israel like this? "...the greatest short-term threat to world peace." Insanity. Just plain crazy. What about the nations that continually attack Israel? Why aren't they threats?
Why aren't these leaders threatened by the "bad guys" in our nation? Why aren't they threatened by nations who continue send suicide in vehicles, set road-side bombs and cause havoc? It seems that some of our leaders would have us and our allies be walked all over and taken advantage of.
I think what they fail to understand is that guns and weapons do not cause conflict. People cause conflict. Crazy people. A gun has never taken a life on its own. Never. Ever. It's impossible. Guns don't have fingers...they can't load themselves...can't aim themselves...can't pull their own triggers... Again, people cause conflict and problems and harm, not weapons.
A person should never be punished for defending their property or family. The way I see it, taking away my ability to defend myself is enabling someone else, who doesn't follow the law, to take advantage of me. If and/or when that happens the government official who took my guns away will ultimately be responsible for the harm done to me.
This disturbing trend does not make sense to me. These are truly dangerous times already and when you add to the mix the people who are supposed to represent us in Washington, DC attacking our rights, the future looks very bleak indeed.
Wednesday, February 21, 2007
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comment:
Take away non-hunting guns? Which would these be? Pistols, I guess, AK-47's, assault rifles, surface to air missile launchers? Um, ok, but hunting guns such as shotguns, deer rifles (30.06 etc) those are ok. It doesnt make a lot of sense, whats the difference, a gun is a gun, they have a similar reaction, they shoot a bullet of some sort. Sure some shoot larger ones, some shoot them faster, some are easy to hide or conceal. But a gun is a gun is a gun.
And who exactly is going to enforce this law? No one is going to go door to door searching everyones home to see if they have a "non-hunting" gun. I wouldnt worry too much about this one brother, it will never happen. And even it did, you would still be able to keep most if not all of your guns, my hunting brother, and the shotgun is the best home defender.
Post a Comment