I have lost a niece to a murder and a good family friend lost both of his parents in a home invasion. A firearm could have made all the difference in either situation. (Yes the key word is COULD) I honestly wonder if those advocating the banning of large clips and weapons have ever dealt with something like that.
I know this, when the day comes that someone breaks down my door with a mind of killing my wife and daughters I want as much firepower as possible…
I don't like this argument. I too have lost multiple family members to guns, but the family members were the one's who did the shooting on other family members, and no amount of available defensive firepower or larger clips would have stopped either of those incidents. And I have thought about it ......a lot actually over the last 20 years I have been without them. A rocket launcher, flame thrower, hand grenade or 60 round magazine would not have made a hill of beans.
If its a home invader, are you gonna sit in your easy chair all day and all night packing heat? If you are in public, are you gonna notice the random guy with a Tech-9 in his jacket pocket? One armed citizen might be able to stop a robbery but what about a scenario like what happened to Gabby Giffords where no one knew who the shooter was and there were openly armed people everywhere after she was shot..... anyone could be the shooter and anyone could have been shot (Chaos).
The whole tact of banning specific fire arms and large clips is not the way to go. The problem I see is the gun restriction argument has two indefensible points. On one side is we need guns to protect ourselves from those with guns. More guns is not the solution. The other side is we need to get rid of guns to protect ourselves from those with guns so they cant get them. The bad guys will get the guns anyway. Sure it might cost more and there is always a black market. How about the manufacturers? What would this do to their business?
Banning guns has worked in other countries and I think we could stand to take a look at how they do that and see what might work here. I think the USA could stand to do that with a lot of things from public transportation to private business. But lets also be real, we are not Israel where the teachers are armed and the threat of a bomb blowing up everyday are very real. Our problems are petty crimes, hunting accidents, road rage, drug and alcohol induced domestic disputes, and people with mental disorders who want to take out as many people as possible at one time before ending their own life.
I understand both arguments and they are both flawed significantly. There is not a clear cut answer for either way. I do believe it is constitutional to regulate arms due to the initial qualifying clause in the 2nd amendment (which apparently is not applicable anymore since 2008). The 2nd amendment does not guarantee you a right to keep up an arms race with the US government, so to argue otherwise is asinine and I think even the constitutional literalists can see how poorly the SCOTUS botched that interpretation. I do believe reasonable regulation is possible and needed.
