I don't mind a liberal viewpoint, sometimes I do agree with them. However for someone to write an article with so many factual inaccuracies is astounding. Just a couple things....
Unfortunately most people who are strong anti refuse to have a debate with me. They typically just start saying no and shutting down without offering any facts or offering incorrect or misconstrued facts. The 2nd amendment needs a PR company to help combat the media doing everything it can to make guns seem scary.
Ummm... hate to break it to you but it's not the government's job to protect it's citizens. (Except maybe from a foreign invasion) The court have ruled countless times that the police are not obligated to protect you. They are Law Enforcement which means after someone breaks the law, they can start to do something about it. And remember kids, when seconds count, the police are only minutes away.In doing so, they have curtailed the power of the legislatures and the city councils to protect their citizens.
He can argue all he wants, I know at least for D.C. (I haven't looked at Chicago) since the ban there has only been an increase in crime despite a national downward trend. So guess what, Gun Control doesn't work to reduce crime. Just because something is illegal doesn't make it go away, if it did, we wouldn't have a war on drugs right now. Whatever side you stand on the war on drugs, I think we can all agree that you can still get drugs pretty easily. If this is true with drugs, what makes you think it wouldn't be true for firearms. In fact, I'd bet most people involved with drugs, at least on the dealing end, probably have illegal guns. All gun laws do is disarm those law-abiding citizens that will comply with the law.We can argue about the effectiveness of municipal handgun bans such as those in Washington and Chicago. They have, at best, had limited impact.
Actually in D.C. yes, you can own a shotgun in the home but it has to be locked and unloaded. Let's see you defend yourself when a bad guy has a loaded and unlocked gun pointed at you. I don't think he'll wait while you unlock your gun and find some ammo. I'd call that overly restrictive. Let's start to apply the same measures to the 1st amendment and see how quickly you yell foul.But neither are these laws overly restrictive. Citizens have had the right to protect themselves in their homes with other weapons, such as shotguns.
Wait, you didn't mention D.C., how come? Ok, so Chicago saw a decrease in gun violence along with the rest of the nation. Guess what 40 states or so allow their citizens to carry guns whenever they want. (well maybe not whenever, there are some restrictions like courthouses, etc...) I don't know what the murder rate is nationally for this year is but I'm going to guess it's either going to continue on the downward trend or at least not raise much. Except for places like Chicago and D.C. which have (or should I say had ) gun bans. Hmmmm.... I guess banning guns don't work.Chicago and the nation saw a decline in gun violence over the last decade or so, but recent news has been ominous. The murder rate in Chicago has risen 13 percent this year.
Let's replace 2nd with 1st and see if you still feel the same way. I feel the 2nd amendment is just as important today as it was back when the founding fathers constructed the bill of rights. The ability to defend oneself is important. If I can't defend myself, who will defend me? The Police? Nothing against the police but they are already stretched thin, especially in big cities like Chicago, D.C., etc... Hey, these cities also have restrictive gun laws so guess where the criminal element is going to thrive? If you allow the people to arm themselves, you've now increased the 'militia' so that they can defend themselves. I've seen interviews where they talk to prisoners and they basically all say the same thing, the most terrifying thing to them is a homeowner with a gun. If you increase the odds that a criminal will face a gun, there will most likely be less crimes. I doubt it will eliminate crime altogether because there will always be people willing to take a risk but it's a good thing if you can reduce it.Repeal the 2nd Amendment? Yes, it’s an anachronism.
Unfortunately most people who are strong anti refuse to have a debate with me. They typically just start saying no and shutting down without offering any facts or offering incorrect or misconstrued facts. The 2nd amendment needs a PR company to help combat the media doing everything it can to make guns seem scary.