Here's the thing. In light of recent mass shooting tragedies, politicians have taken it upon themselves to do something. Everyone agrees, something must be done, however, it's my firm belief that we're asking the wrong people. If you ask a politician to do something, he will make a law. That's just what they do, it's not their fault, it's to be expected. Just as if you ask a carpenter to build you a garage, he will build it out of wood. If you ask a mason to build you a garage, he will make it out of stone. If you ask a politician to build you a garage, he will make garages illegal. If your only tool is a hammer, all of your problems look like nails.
Here's why making laws to try and stop mass shootings won't work. The perpetrators of such crimes have already decided to break the law. What's one or two more laws, when the perpetrator is most likely not going to come out of this alive anyway? Making certain weapons illegal is not going to stop them from being available. Look how well that worked with drugs. or hookers. Both of those are illegal, and both can be had on a dark corner in any city in America.
What about the laws that they come up with. In New York, a magazine can only hold 7 bullets, so you are breaking the law if your weapon holds 8 or more. How does this save children? and the counter to that "Why would you need more than 7 bullets?" Well, perhaps, in most cases you don't. Until you do. Say, you're home, and someone breaks in with the intent to harm you and your family. Maybe there's more than 1 assailant, maybe there's 2 or 3. Would you be comfortable with 7 bullets? In that situation, with adrenalin flowing, your aim may be off and you may not be able to fend them all off. I'm sure you'll be happy to stop and reload. They'll wait, right? Those 7 bullets will last you the 20 minutes it takes for the police to arrive, right?
I think it's telling that the people who are calling for gun control the loudest, surround themselves with guards who are armed with weapons that they would make illegal for citizens to own. It shows me that they're more important than we are, and that their safety is paramount, while ours isn't.
Background checks. I think that background checks are reasonable. Just as I think that voter registration is reasonable, but for some reason there are a lot of Democrats that seem to think that's unconstitutional. How about a compromise? People have to register to get a gun and to vote. Waddaya think?
Let's talk about the 2nd amendment.
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 infringedWell Regulated Militia. Nowhere does the 2nd amendment talk about hunting, or to use Joe Biden's words, "That malarkey" It's clear that the House and Senate approved words were talking about defending the state. And by state, I mean the people that made up the state, private citizens. You and me. Now, there are some who will counter with "Well, they didn't have bazookas when they wrote The Constitution, and they wouldn't want citizens to have military weapons." To that, I say, "I kinda think they would." Don't forget, these gentlemen had just finished a pretty bloody war with England. They didn't say "Let's not use our muskets, because the British Army has those. We private citizens should use bows and arrows or something less lethal." The Founding Fathers weren't idiots. They knew that the musket would not remain the zenith of weapons technology, and therefore didn't limit the Bill of Rights to say so. They wanted the people to be able to defend themselves.
The bottom line is, I'm against government taking away my freedoms. Any of them. I am fine with background checks, I don't want to allow felons or people of unsound mind access to weapons, but I don't want to give all of my rights to the government.