Firearms Fax

In urban areas where gun control laws are meant to protect the populace, the people doing most of the controlling are the perpetrators, those who own the guns.  While the idea of taking away the weapons from the perpetrators sounds like a good idea, the simple fact is that states who enforce strict gun control laws are usually the states that place on the most dangerous cities lists year after year.  Case in point, Washington D.C.  The United States capitol is constantly listed as a vicinity where crime abounds, yet strict gun control laws are in effect.

More safe?

If gun control laws were as effective as they are touted to be, then the states that enact those strict laws would benefit greatly from the alleged good that comes from drafting such laws.  However, the states that enforce those laws suffer the opposite of the intended effect.  The states that have the strictest gun control laws are exactly those that are constant mainstays on the Most Dangerous Cities in the United States lists year in and year out.  If protection of the people was the object of the strict gun control laws, then the laws have failed.  Yet nothing is done to correct the situation, to have safer cities.  It almost seems like the laws provide nothing except a cover up of sorts.  Lawmakers boast about the laws they’ve enacted, yet the effectiveness of the laws enacted are not called into question.  They just don’t take into account that the people pulling the trigger are what makes the cities dangerous.

After Labor Day, student throughout the country, both college and primary school, will return to their respective classrooms.  While the students learn the basics that will help them in the future, no doubt, those who watch the news every night may worry about what to do should a violent situation arise.  Schools everywhere always prepare students in the event of earthquakes, but do they ever discuss what to do in a potentially disastrous man made situation?  What situation might that be, you ask?  That unfortunate situation would be an armed intruder who barged into the institution to do harm to the students, staff, administrators, or all of the above.

Armed, to protect the students

How many educational institutions are you aware of that insure the safety of their students by employing armed security in order to safeguard the well being of the student body, faculty, adminstrators and any random guests who may have been victims of wrong place, wrong time, had their been no one protecting them?  While there may very well be faculty and administrators that have thought about these disturbing scenarios, and did what they could do in their power to minimize potential casualties, there are more educational institutions that do absolutely nothing at all, which is akin to burying their head in the sand.  While legislators write laws that supposedly protect the general public,  more specific legislation that would directly affect more people in a collective place against danger has yet to be passed.  Good to know that our legislators have the public’s best interest at the heart of their service.

The Democratic party is widely known for their stance against the 2nd ammendment.  Many of their representatives, the President of the United States included, like to believe that making guns inaccessible to people seeking to acquire them through legal means, will decrease the crimes that are wrought against the people who elected them.  Now let’s look at the realities of gun control in the inner cities, or urban areas, whichever label you may be comfortable with.  A general tragedy in inner cities, or urban areas, is the fact that violence is a regular occurrence for citizens who chose to live in the area.  Does gun control decrease the number fatalities that regular occur in these areas?  One criteria that these gun control advocates can’t control for is the fact that the people who commit the crimes are already in the criminal system.

Gun control

If the perpetrators of crimes have already dabbled in crime, the likelihood of the perpetrator having acquired the firearm legally, based on their own merits, is slim indeed.  Cities such as Baltimore, Philadelphia, New York City and various California locales have had strict gun control laws on the books for many years, yet still suffer at the hands of the local gang members, or criminals.  Crimes perpetrated against innocent people cannot be stopped by merely making firearms impossible to acquire legally.  They are stopped by transforminig the people who commit the crimes.  When the individuals who live in these areas believe that they no longer want to hurt one another, then crime will be but a bad memory.  Gun control is not the answer.

Protection for whom?

When politicians endorse acts and bills that eventually become laws, are they really thinking of their constitutency?  For example, a representative or congressperson who’s district is considered an “urban or inner city” region, drafts a bill that renders all automatic weapons illegal.  The idea, or motivation for the bill sounds noble enough, wanting to protect the citizens from the evils of gang violence.  However, if only the criminals have those weapons, and the law abiding citizens are not permitted to ever get one, in order to protect themselves from the violence that the gang members will inevitably inflict, where is the justice in that?  So the bill, which was approved by the requisite government officials in order to become a law of the land, is now hindering the law abiding public from protecting themselves.  And those who have illegal weapons, can hold the law abiding citizens hostage because of the inequality that is now interpreted as the law of the land.  Just how is enabling the criminals now interpreted as protecting the public?  The logic that politicians use, in the beginning stages, can be noble.  It’s just that by the time that the introduced bill is transformed into a law, that same bill no longer protects the people that it set out to protect; but instead does them harm.  When laws calling for gun control, or outlawing the sale of a certain weapon are enforced, the very people who want to protect themself from danger are made victims of the noble minded law.

The idea of gun control always garners much controversy  Those on the side of gun control, usually the left wing Democrats and their mouthpiece, the mainstream liberal media, always espouse the good that comes out of such legislation.  The other side, those who view the mainstream media with skepticism, and don’t believe that the National Rifle Association is not a bunch of crazy people, see gun control as a ruse to slowly weaken and eventually nullify the 2nd ammendment.

Gun control

Each time the United States Supreme Court rules that the 2nd ammendment is not a sweeping right, but can be interpreted as the Court sees fit, is an injury inducing blow to the 2nd ammendment itself.  When citizens are not allowed to exercise their right to bear arms, the idea behind the 2nd ammendment in the first place, the SCOTUS has given itself proof that the 2nd ammendment is not essential.  When something is obsolete, there is no reason for it to continue existing.  So, if the SCOTUS eventually rules in favor of eroding what was meant to be the law of the land, what would stop the momentum of that proverbial snowball.  Inhabitants of this country are not very well versed in the United States Constitution, so if something like that happened, the mainstream media might be successful in covering such a story up.  But those of us who know that the mainsream media doesn’t really report the truth during each broadcast would know what happened.  The beginning of the end is upon us, and unless people remind the Government that their job is to protect and serve us, it might be too late.