Now that we've had another mass murder in the USA (Las Vegas, NV- 58 dead, over 500 wounded) of course the debate about gun control is kicking up a notch again. This is understandable ! We all watch in horror as massacre after massacre happens in our country and we all want it to stop. It is a natural tendency to declare "we must have new laws" so that this sort of thing won't happen again. The easiest target is the gun themselves. "If it wasn't for the gun, this wouldn't have happened". (Never mind that there are also these things called bombs). "Something must be done" everyone tells each other, especially in Hollywood and the national media. The late night TV hosts are even chiming in and they've all come out in favor of more gun laws and we're told the NRA (National Rifleman's Association- very powerful lobby in Washington, DC) "has blood on its hands". None of this should be a surprise, especially from the national media since the bulk of them are merely the Democratic party in journalists clothing and the Democrats are all about gun control. Nancy Pelosi, the House Minority Leader essentially came out in favor of restricting the 2nd Amendment all together. Ironically, nearly all the mass murders in the USA this past 10-20 years have been by registered Democrats. Go figure !
So after 58 people are butchered by a lunatic bastard, it's hard to argue against doing something to stop such weapons from getting into their hands, and I fully support background checks. The fact of the matter is that there are ALREADY quite a few gun laws in the USA, including background requirements for most assault type rifles such as the one used in Las Vegas. Chicago has the strictest gun laws in the land and they have the highest gun death rate in the land too. We should look for ways to limit guns getting into the hands of felons and lunatics, but to restrict guns sold to law abiding citizens needs to be scrutinized. Would stricter gun laws help? It's not impossible, but my concern is that if you remove the guns then the only guns available would be owned by the criminals themselves. Again, statistics show that ALL mass murders committed in the past 20 years could NOT have been prevented with any laws that are currently being proposed.
Should we have a national discussion regarding details for limiting gun violence and such mass murders ? Of course, but both sides have got to be willing to listen to each other.
The right (Republicans) needs to be willing to yield a little regarding some restrictions, especially to plug a lot of the loopholes regarding gun shows where background checks can be avoided (is my understanding). In addition they should be open to compromise with the Democrats. There are some laws that would not infringe on anyone's right to bear arms and they just make sense. The NRA needs to yield some of its demands with the understanding that their stubborn tactics are making things worse. You can't get everything, but if you keep demanding it all you risk LOSING everything. Be smart. In addition, I would point out to the left that the movies and television and games that are so abundantly violent certainly have had some influence in these massacres. Are they willing to tone down the violence coming from their buddies in Hollywood ?
The left (Democrats) needs to understand where gun owners are coming from. Just to clear up confusion- It's not only about hunting or self defense, it's also about a tyrannical government. The gun owners DO NOT trust the government. The Second Amendment was constructed to guarantee that the government could never take away the right of people to be able to protect themselves from a tyrannical government. Adolf Hitler seized guns in the 1930's from German citizens and there would be over 50 MILLION dead by the time we dropped a bomb on his head. Venezuelan dictator Chavez removed all guns and now the population is at the mercy of his socialist government and they starve. I guarantee Chavez' reasoning was "to protect you". Right. This could never happen here ? Never say never. The fact of the matter is that there is probably no better protection against tyranny than that anyone who considers seizing control of a nation would be reluctant if he or she knew the nation had 100 million citizens that own guns. How do you overcome such opposition among the people. So if you wonder why gun owners and the right are so adamant, that's why. They don't trust what the government is capable of doing if it does seize guns. And they're right.
In My Humble Opinion.....