Gun Debate Op-Ed #4

Part 4 of my limited series on the gun debate…..as I have stated I will present both sides of the dialog as I do not wish to influence one’s thinking only to inform for a better understanding.

This op-ed is about the Second Amendment……

Gun-control advocates in the United States are experiencing quite a bit of Canada envy, after Prime Minister Justin Trudeau announced this week that he will be banning import, sales, and transfers of handguns. He also announced legislation to require citizens to turn over their “military-style assault weapons” in a mandatory buy-back program. As of now, there is no legal definition of “military-style assault weapon,” so Canadians with guns will presumably be alerted when they become criminals on a TBD basis.

This is in addition to the banning of 1,500 rifle models in the wake of a 2020 mass shooting in Nova Scotia, were 22 people were killed. It’s part of an “ever-expanding” list of prohibited models maintained by the Royal Canadian Mounted Police.

The proposed legislation also includes tighter red-flag restrictions, provisions for confiscation and disabling of banned guns, and a blanket restriction of magazines to only five rounds.

Why can’t we enact Canada’s wish list of restrictions in the U.S.?—our gun control activists wonder.

 

Well, it’s not the gun lobby. The National Rifle Association (NRA) has been seriously weakened, is floundering in corruption accusations, and has filed for bankruptcy in the past two years. But it was also never the primary strength of gun-owners’ side of the argument. That strength lies in the Second Amendment, which whatever you think of its protections of Americans’ right to a firearm, is a hard fact with which activists must contend.

If the goal is to significantly curtail the number of guns—or even slow its growth, which is the purported goal of many activists—they must deal with the Constitution. No matter how “commonsense” you might consider some gun regulations, they have to pass constitutional muster to become a reality.

https://www.thedailybeast.com/im-pro-second-amendment-but-if-the-libs-want-to-get-rid-of-it-heres-what-theyd-have-to-do

Now I know somewhere someone has a rebuttal to this proposal…..

Watch This Blog!

I Read, I Write, You Know

“lego ergo scribo”

17 thoughts on “Gun Debate Op-Ed #4

  1. It’s all in the interpretation of the Constitution. I would say that if you are a citizen and a member in good standing of an official well armed militia, you should be able to buy all the single shot muskets and pistol that your heart desires. If you are not the member of a well-armed militia, then you shouldn’t be allowed to own a weapon of any kind that operates on the basis of projectiles and gun powder.

      1. As you said, it’s not an either-or, is it? If I had to rate the the order of importance of all the amendments (as currently interpreted) the Second would be last.

      2. At least quill and parchment would not be subject to a cyber attack that has the potential to shut all the essential services of the nation down.

      3. I particularly like the gun owner’s fall-back argument that assures their enduring survival in an apocalypse when they say, “They may get me in the end but not before I take a few of ’em with me!”.
        Is anyone really gonna care?

      4. I have yet to see these people go after each other…they prefer to attack innocent people that have no recourse…..chuq

      5. With all the continued murder and mayhem going on and nobody willing to do anything about it, it sure as hell looks to me like nobody cares so, yes, you are right!

      6. I actually hope that it becomes easier for maniacs to get guns. That way maybe they can kill each other off and leave the rest of us alone.

  2. I have been blogging for 10 years this summer, and during that time this gun debate has always been around. I think if I lived long enough to blog for 50 more years, I would still be reading blog posts about it.
    Best wishes, Pete.

    1. I will be long dead before anything gets accomplished….as long as there is deflection and semantics the debate will go NOWHERE. chuq

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.