“Come on, Sal! The Tigers are playing…tonight! I never miss a game.”
Please tell me you’re familiar with that quote! No??? Well allow me to share.
It’s Clarence Boddicker, from the original Robocop…which is being remade might I add…yet I digress.
So today, I posted a picture originally posted by HuffPost Chicago:
This Colt AR-15 is just one of the semiautomatic weapons that would be illegal if the Illinois Assault Weapon Ban is passed.
Read more: http://huff.to/Rv6pBi
To which I added in my posting:
Who, in all honesty needs that weapon? I spent a year in Afghanistan, and 2 years living in rural Alaska. If you need that weapon to hunt anything, you suck, and need to find a new hobby. I can’t swim, so I keep my black behind out of the pool. If you need an AR-15 to bag a duck, deer, or bear, you can’t shoot!
Needless to say this started some spirited debate.
Now, allow me to start by saying that the National Rifle Association’s (NRA) official stance on this issue is that they oppose semi-automatic weapons bans.
*source: NRA: We will oppose semi-automatic weapons ban Now I encourage you to go to that link and watch the video, it’s very interesting, and pretty well sets off this debate. Now, it’s also important to note that a weapon similar to the one above was used in the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting.
Now, I’m pretty sure that I support a ban on assault weapons in IL., and if not the entire state, most definitely in the Chicagoland area. However, this issue is long, arduous, and emotional…and I don’t know what is necessarily the right move to make. But I think there is a few key issues (and this list certainly isn’t exhaustive) that come to mind when thinking about whether anyone, living in an urban environment (please note the word urban), needs to have this kind of weapon, and how that relates to the Second Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.
- The Second Amendment of the Constitution states:
As passed by the Congress:
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
As ratified by the States and authenticated by Thomas Jefferson, Secretary of State:
A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
- Gun bans only affect law abiding citizens!
Now, it’s hard to argue with this point. Criminals don’t care what you ban, or what regulations you put forth. This is true. Now, this comes the time when you have to move away from the gray and start making some hard, dare i say coarse decisions. So, you ban semi-automatic assault weapons. What then becomes the penalty when you find someone with one? How many years should that person server without chance of parole? I think that’s a fundamental question that needs to be faced. Police are not controlling our streets as it is. I do not however think that giving every John Q. Public on the street an AR-15 is going to help current crime problems.
The United States has the highest rate of gun related injuries (not deaths per capita) among developed countries, though it also has the highest rate of gun ownership and the highest rate of officers.
source: Wikipedia: Gun violence
- Guns have evolved and advanced beyond the framers of the Constitutions’ wildest dreams!
Guns in 1791 WOULD
- …be made by a gunsmith.
- …have rudimentary rifling.
- …be single-shot weapons.
- …be loaded through the muzzle.
- …fire by means of a flintlock.
Guns in 1791 WOULD NOT
- …have interchangeable parts. (Popularized in 1798)
- …be revolvers. (Invented in 1835)
- …be breachloaded. (Popularized in 1810)
- …use smokeless powder. (Invented in 1885)
- …use a percussion cap, necessary for modern cartridged bullets. (Invented in 1842)
- …load bullets from a clip. (Invented in 1890)
source: Columbia Law School American Constitution Society
IT TOOK ABOUT ONE AND HALF MINUTES TO LOAD FOR ONE SHOT!!!