On the 2nd Amendment and "Gun Control"
Someone wrote a compelling and deep message on "Gun Control." Yes, we know about a criminal who entered a school in Connecticut and opened fire, killing 26 people, 20 of whom were children. Completely innocent unarmed victims.
Gun control was already in effect in Newtown. The criminal in this case committed dozens of felonies that day... and we are witnesses to the futility and folly of counting on law alone to protect women and children when no man stands in the door to protect us.
No increase in law or regulation would have prevented this horror, no paperwork would have saved a single child. In the face of a willful, angry, hostile person, only an equally determined man, soldier, police officer, sheriff or trooper can stop such an event.
Columbine. Red Lake Minnesota. Essex Vermont. Lancaster. Aurora. Virginia Tech. You named many events. They all share one common thread: no single armed officer or citizen stood on the ground to STOP and KILL the attackers.
Gun control? It is needed: a ready hand to aim and shoot when an attack is imminent or underway. How many more innocents must die at the hands of an antiquated and oft-misinterpreted amendment? None. The Constitution, the 2nd Amendment killed no-one. Angry, haunted, unstable people killed innocents, because there were not enough people in the lives of the killers who could identify the threat, who took an interest in the disturbed minds of such criminals, not enough police to walk the streets to save the victims when evil marched.
It's time to stop the violence. But we don't do so by screaming for "Gun Control." Some suggest Gun show loopholes must be stopped. Why? No evidence suggests that any of the shooters obtained their guns at any gun show. Ammunition should not be sold online? Where is the evidence that a single bullet used in any murder was bought online?
It has been said that mandatory wait periods should be enforced during which time a thorough background check, psychological and medical evaluation and character references should be completed.
Really? We already have that in place, the FBI checks every application, since 1992. Perhaps more accountability should be placed in the hands of retailers? How? Define that. Some suggest that when patrons refuse wait periods, authorities should be notified. Guess what? The law already requires that, police and the ATF are called regularly, and retailers deny sales to non-compliant 'customers.' Would you mandate that gun dealers SHOOT such people on the spot?
Some suggest that training and testing be mandatory, as should a renewal process that includes many of the above-mentioned evaluation terms. That is already the rule and law in most states.
Why not expand the same concept to alcohol? Demand that every liquor store check customers for alcoholism, and make background checks for the sale of a fifth of vodka?
It was illegal for Lanza to drive across town with loaded weapons in his car, as he was under-age (not yet 21) and illegal to drive onto the school parking lot with illegal weapons. The law didn't stop him.
It was illegal for him to break a window at the school... the law failed to stop him.
It was illegal for him to trespass on school property with a rifle, yet the trespassing laws didn't slow him down for a second.
It was (and is) illegal for him to assault, maim, and shoot people, and a special crime to assault a child, yet those laws were meaningless when he chose to ignore them all, as he intended to die before any man could arrest him.
He killed himself rather than face the law. How would anyone have prevented his suicide, which is ALSO illegal in Connecticut. The law didn't prevent his last act, either.
We cannot trust in ""law" to protect us. Instead, we must rely on rough, violent men, men like myself and my brothers who walk and ride the streets of America to risk our lives and limbs to defend you. Only a bullet could have stopped him, no paper did, no paper laws ever will "protect" you from any person with malice in their heart.
