Share this on:
 E-mail
1,723
VIEWS
5
COMMENTS
 
SHARES
About this iReport
  • Not vetted for CNN

  • Click to view INGunOwner's profile
    Posted December 19, 2012 by
    INGunOwner
    Location
    Indiana
    Assignment
    Assignment
    This iReport is part of an assignment:
    Gun control debate: Background checks

    An AWB would only infringe on constitutional rights

     

    I believe the Second Amendment has a clear military reasoning behind it. It protects the people from crimincals as well as tyrannical governments - which could come from abroad or spawn domestically. Some argue that we have no use for the Second Amendment today because the government is trustworthy. However since the 2A acts as a deterrent, we can never measure exactly how much it has been effective. But perhaps the notion that people feel safe with our government after over 200 years is a testament to the Second Amendment value in balancing power with the citizens.

     

    I do not believe the so-called assault weapons ban proposed in Congress will have any impact on violent crime. Data from the FBI indicates that what politicians consider assault weapons only account for 1-2% of gun related crime. The criteria defining an assault weapon arbitraray, based purely on cosmetic features: pistol grips, collapsible stocks, bayonet lugs, flash suppressors. These features don't effect the lethality of the gun. They only hurt gun enthusiasts who enjoy these features for their novelty.

     

    A weapons ban is concerning because it is the beginning of a larger infringement on gun rights. If the Attorney General is given unchecked authority to increase the criteria, then the benefits of the Second Amendment right could be slowly eroded away. How can the People trust an Attorney General who has been accused of creating gun crime by consciously permitting the sale of dangerous guns to murderous drug cartels? (I'm talking about Fast and Furious.)

     

    The school shooting in Connecticut is a signal that we need to do something to stop future mass murders from happening. But let's not tread the slippery slope of banning certain firearms, becuase if we start deeming some guns as being "too dangerous" to be in the hands of the public, then where do we stop? All guns are dangerous when in the wrong hands. In the hands of a law abiding citizen, a gun can save lives from the perils posed by the criminally insane.

     

    As a Chinese citizen commented today in lament that other countries do not have the benefit of an armed populace: "Dictatorship has brought disasters much greater than the losses from the shooting."

     

    http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-12-19/on-china-s-internet-a-pro-gun-response-to-newtown.html

     

    ** It has come to my attention that a website by the name of www.ingunowners.com has been confused with the screen name used to publish this article. The views expressed here are purely of the author (an anonymous gun owner in Indiana) and not representative of the INGunOwners website community.

    • TAGS:

    • GROUPS:

    What do you think of this story?

    Select one of the options below. Your feedback will help tell CNN producers what to do with this iReport. If you'd like, you can explain your choice in the comments below.
    Be and editor! Choose an option below:
      Awesome! Put this on TV! Almost! Needs work. This submission violates iReport's community guidelines.

    Comments

    Log in to comment

    iReport welcomes a lively discussion, so comments on iReports are not pre-screened before they post. See the iReport community guidelines for details about content that is not welcome on iReport.

    Add your Story Add your Story