Here's a testimony from Texas State Rep. Dr. Susan Gratia about Texas's assult weapons ban in the late '90s. Seriously, people. The 2nd Ammendment is there for YOUR OWN GOOD.
Brilliant closing statement. I love the shots of Schumer sinking in his chair.
And yes, I blame legislators for killing those people.
In another interview, she talked about how some argue that if she had her handgun on her, it could have made the situation worse. It could have jammed, she could have shot a bystander, or been shot herself. In her words, "But I'll tell you the one thing that nobody could argue with: it sure as heck would have changed the odds."
And, unfortunately, we don't have to wonder what could have happened if no one had a gun.
Here's another video, cos it's good and, I must admit, I love taking shots at Rosie.
Just remember: the point is for the government to be afraid of the people, not the other way around.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
6 comments:
If I recall (and it's been a while since I read the Bill of Rights), the second amendment also has a phrase that people like to forget. It says "in a well-regulated militia".
Just sayin.
(I couldn't get the first video to work, so maybe I missed the point)
Sorry bout the video. It should work now.
Yeah, the first video was awesome, and addressed the amendment specifically.
Here it is, btw:
"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."
So it doesn't say "in" a well-regulated militia, which would imply only those in a militia could have guns. The point is that everyone can have them in case the need for a militia should arise. In the mean time, you can do other things with them, like hunt or defend your own life. Up to you.
The key part is "the right of the people to keep and bear arms, SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED." It doesn't say "the right of militias." It simply says "the people."
Why, in today's world, would you or I need to own a gun in order to be ready to fight our nation's enemies? I'm pretty sure the US military has that one under control.
Have you ever had a gun pulled on you? It messes you up. There was a solid year where, if I was walking home at night, I would expect every person I passed, white/black, male/female, to pull a gun on me. It's not fun.
Maybe I'm just cynical and thinking everything will go all Lord of the Flies if we allow more people to carry, but I think it's possible that gun control could be not the solution, but a part of the solution. Think of gun control like the drinking age. Is it perfect? Not by any means. Do people get around it? Absolutely. Would the country be safer without it? Absolutely not.
Anyway, I haven't really thought much about this in the past, so I hope it didn't come out too jumbled.
Oh, and I voted for Skeet Surfing. Dang hippies.
I do believe my last couple of sentences were unintentionally ironic.
The point isn't just fighting foreign enemies. Indeed, our military has that covered. But like Susan said in the video, part of it is in case we need to protect ourselves from our own government, or anyone else who may invade our homes or whatever.
No, I've never had a gun pulled on me. But I have heard testimony from many people who have, like Susan, and they wish they had a gun to pull back.
But don't think I'm for just anyone having a gun. I'm a fan of background checks and proper training. But if you know how to use one, aren't crazy or anything, it's your right.
So no, in today's world, there is no need for citizens to own guns for warfare purposes. But there are plenty of other reasons.
And I really doubt that stricter laws will help. People who wish to use guns for evil will find ways of getting them. Even now, many who kill with them got them illegally anyway. And is it really an better to have someone pull a knife on you instead?
Plus, I think the whole drinking age thing is debatable. Look at other countries where people start drinking as children. So I don't see the problem being how accessible something is, but more the attitude the society has towards it.
So, if I were wanting to mug somebody or break in their home, I'd be much more hesitant if I thought that THEY might be carrying.
Maybe you are too cynical (cos they haven't gone crazy like that in Canada), but those last sentences were definitely ironic. And humorously so. :) Thanks for the input.
Gentlemen, please! Just agree to disagree and join my Katana Campaign, to make it legal to carry swords. Swords allow personal protection with little to no collateral damage and you don't mis-stab while cleaning your sword. Also, little Bobby can't kill himself or his friends with a sword because it's just too heavy to lift. Okay, I admit it, I just want to be a sword lobbyist in D.C.
Post a Comment