Yes, our nation mourns after the loss of 20 small children and six adults, but do we have to go as far as to ban guns, especially since the State of Connecticut had very strong gun laws? Do we always have to go after the final object, ignoring the reason that the object was used? Why is it that we as a nation, especially those near the Socialist/Communist side, always seem to have the idea alone that banning any sort of ammunition or guns will stop the killing? It has not worked before and it will not work again! It is constantly stated that even if we would ban all the guns, then only the criminals will have the guns. This is so very true that it is a sad idea to even consider. Connecticut, a state that had very limited gun ownership laws, and yet all the sick individual had to do was go to his Mom’s house, kill her and then go off and kill anyone he wished.
Let us just look back since 2009 and see what has happened in our nation.
March 10, 2009, Michael McLendon, 28 kills 10 people then kills himself.
Trending: Agenda 21: The BLM Land Grabbing Endgame
November 5, 2009, Maj. Nidal Hasan kills 13 and wounds more than 24, he is the Fort Hood Terrorist.
January 8, 2011 Jared Lee Loughner kills 6 people, wounds 13 others.
July 20, 2012 12 people are killed by James Holmes, a 24 year old at the opening of a batman movie, he is shown just a few days after looking totally dazed and confused.
August 5, 2012 Wade Michael Page kills 6 and wounds 3 others than he kills himself.
December 1, 2012 Jovan Belcher, kills his girlfriend then kills himself.
December 11, 2012 Jacob Tyler Roberts 22, kills two people and wounds another before killing himself.
December 14, 2012, Adam Lanza, 20 years old, kills 27 people 20 of them Children, in Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newton, Connecticut, than kills himself.
The State of Connecticut gun laws specifies in part:
“It is unlawful to possess any other firearm by a person who has been convicted of a felony. It is unlawful to possess a handgun if convicted as a delinquent of a serious juvenile offense which includes.”
Once again no one will know why this individual did this, but it is known that the young man suffered from a possible mental problem. If we look at just these certain instances, we see that 6 of the 9 killed themselves after they killed innocent people and of the remaining 3, one suffered from schizophrenia and one may have killed as an act of terror. The one at Aurora, Colorado looked to be very dazed and confused. Did you also notice the ages of these individuals? Of all of these actions, only two were over 30 years old. Is it due to age? Is this due to problems from childhood? What is the underlying problem in all these cases? It seems like the Lame stream media has taken a hard look, for all of maybe one hour before they began yelling for some sort of “new” gun laws. Would this help? Would it keep these particularly young men from “losing it” and killing innocent people?
Some, if not all, of these alleged killers have had some sort of mental or emotional problems leading up to the killing. Why is it that few of these “reporters” ask or even consider the ages or health of these people? It has to be mentioned that on the very same day of the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting, a man in China went on a rampage with a knife slashing school children, but not killing any of them.. We have to state that no one other than military can even own a gun in China. It really does not matter if they have guns or knives or baseball bats, these people will continue to kill innocent people.
Just two days after this tragedy Senator Dianne Feinstein, a lady that wants nothing more than to “control” all guns comes out stating, “It will ban the sale, the transfer, the importation and the possession — not retroactively, but prospectively –” of “assault weapons” as well as high-capacity magazines.”
Well, if this lady would look and see, the very weapon she wants banned is a very popular hunting rifle for its lightweight and easy use in the woods. The rifle used a .223 caliber round, as some would call it, a 5.56 NATO round. It is a rifle used by many hunters for deer and other animals. One has to wonder just who is it that decides what is and what is not an “assault weapon”? If the government is the one making that decision, we could argue that would not be either fair or right.
Sen. Dick Durbin (D-Ill.) said he is going to hold a hearing in two weeks on “this constitutional question,” a reference to the Second Amendment. “That’s the starting point,” he said. Now here comes the question once again about the Second Amendment and what it really means. They have volumes of books on this and many different takes on it too. One person stated that the Second Amendment was meant for one musket and twelve rounds of ammunition. The entire concept of the Second Amendment was to have a populace that was well armed should any aggressor try to invade the United States. It has to be mentioned that the main reason that Japan did not launch a surprise invasion on the west coast was due to the people with guns! Now with just that in mind, it could easily be stated that guns have kept us free to the point that rogue nations do not wish to fight a gun battle on the soil of the United States because they know they would never win. Having said that, we can as easily state that no type of gun control would have stopped the mad man from attacking that school. Connecticut has very strict gun laws and this individual did not own one, but the guns have been the main objects while the real problem is being shoved to the back once again. In nearly all the cases, the person taking action suffered from some sort of mental problem, but instead of seizing the golden opportunity to speak out about the mental problem, nearly everyone has turned their focus to guns and banning the amount one can have in a magazine. This has the same type of reasoning as banning 32-ounce drinks, both can be circumvented! Yes instead of holding just one clip of ten rounds, the mentally problematic person will carry maybe 10 magaazines. So that will solve no problem at all, neither will banning the “assault” weapons because we can be sure that they will pop up in the same spots the drugs pop up in.
Our nation will come to grips with this problem, but banning guns will do nothing to stop another mad man who wants to kill. Just like the banning of the 32 ounce drink, instead of buying just one 32 ounce drink, people now buy two 16 ounce drinks. The problem is still there. It will be the same with the guns, no matter what type of action taken, guns will be used to kill people. Chicago has the toughest gun laws in the nation and it also has the highest murder rate too. So banning the guns has not stopped the killings in Chicago. Just how will it stop killings anywhere? If murderers cannot use guns, they will resort to whatever they can use. We should focus on the huge problem of mental health in our nation but those who wish dearly to disarm everyone do not want to even talk about that and that subject is much larger than any gun control law could ever be.
Gun control, just with the mention of maybe doing it, has driven people to buy more guns before they ban the ones that many hunters like and use. The AR-15 is a great sport rifle since it can handle all sorts of mistreatment and still be used for hunting. The same can be said about the SKS and the AK-47, all are great hunting rifles since they stop big game in their tracks and they take a lot of abuse. Just because a mentally deficient person uses them to kill with does not mean they should be banned. People use cars and a lot of other things to kill with so why not just ban everything until we all walk around like the puppets the government wants us to be? If one looks very close at those now yelling for gun control, you may be surprised to find that nearly everyone of them yelling the loudest from the evening news also have body guards with them, so why not ban body guards? Yes, Diane Feinstein does have bodyguards so she does not have to worry about guns because her bodyguards carry the guns!
The entire idea of gun control is purely a political move to disarm the public so the government may well do as it pleases.Don't forget to Like Freedom Outpost on Facebook and Twitter, and follow our friends at RepublicanLegion.com.
Become an insider!
Sign up for the free Freedom Outpost email newsletter, and we'll make sure to keep you in the loop.