- Posted January 10, 2013 by
This iReport is part of an assignment:
Gun control debate: Background checks
Any Weapon My Government Has, I Should Have Too.
I mean, why not? On the surface this sounds absurd. Where do I plan to park my M1A1 Abrams tank? A large part of the meaning behind the 2nd Amendment was to ensure that free, law-abiding American citizens would have the right to defend themselves against the potential tyranny of a government who has overstepped its bounds.
I believe that as a law-abiding citizen, I should be entitled to purchase and own ANY firearm that my own government has in its arsenal, specifically for this purpose! Otherwise, what good does owning small arms do me when my potentially tyrannical government owns much more advanced and powerful weapons than I do?
Also, consider the mindset of an invading country and/or state. Who in their right mind is going to consider launching a "Red Dawn" type of attack on the United States, knowing that every other household is armed? However; if we are only armed with small arms that can provide only a small amount of resistance, they may consider it worth the chance. This is hypothetical; however shouldn't simply be laughed off as an impossibility. We, the American people, are not untouchable. Many of us live in this little bubble, and we don't really take the time to understand the protection and barrier that our armed forces place around on borders. We are, for lack of a better term, mostly ignorant to this fact.
I certainly believe that restrictions should be placed on who can own guns if they are deemed to be mentally unstable, etc. however this becomes a slippery slope. Who gets to say "you are mentally unstable"?
Perhaps we should just leave it alone and stop trying to pretend that the firearms are the problem. Criminals are the problem.
I'm a proud, liberal gun owner, protected by the rights afforded to me by my forefathers in the 2nd Amendment. And you will never take my guns away from me.