Ridding the U.S. of legal gun possession altogether would have prevented the Virginia Tech massacre……..and then we all woke up. Thanks to the convenient and widely available black market, preventing a suicidal, cowardly, and homicidal prepubescent nerd from attaining a fire arm is an ignorant and uneducated assumption. The boy had a mental constitution of such that he could care less about the law or the consequences of his hellish intentions. He knew, and planned accordingly, that he would not have to live to see justice hammer on his cowardly little head. His target was not only the students and faculty of Virginia Tech, but rather the world itself. He wanted to hurt the world. Anybody with this frame of mind would have been successful regardless of any gun law.
The liberal-left theory is that more laws equal no guns, and no guns equal no gun crime. That would make sense in the fantasy Utopia of which they live. Unfortunately we live in grown-up land, and in grown-up land the really bad people, the people who could give a rat’s ass about the law, are going to carry guns anyway. Meanwhile, all of the good people, people who probably should have a gun, will abide by the law in an effort to continue their lives as law abiding citizens. Well now we’re left with all the bad guys pointing guns at the defenseless good guys. Talk about a shift in power! Criminals and criminals to come would own us. I wouldn’t be surprised if violent criminals were voting for tougher gun laws for that very cause.
I do NOT, however, support the use or ownership of crowd-cutting, crater-drilling, military issue fire arms. It has been well established that a single bullet is more than capable of killing a human being. If I were to support any gun law, it would be to limit the weaponry allotted for civilian use. One could NOT successfully cite the second Amendment against my argument, as one would soon be reminded that the 2nd Amendment was written when guns were single-shot and not very accurate. When the Amendment was written, Native American tribes were beginning to realize that we were not simply here to visit, we were really getting on the bad side of one British Empire, and carnivorous wild life thought themselves privy of walking off with our kids. Not exactly the grim environment we face today, at least not one of which would justify weapons which could fire thousands of rounds per minute. Such weaponry were not even contemplated in books of fiction when the Amendment was written.
One could also argue that gangs have such weapons. I would argue that so has the police. Frankly the gangs’ guns had to have come from somewhere, perhaps from a home after it was broken into by a local gang representative. Honestly, I do not trust anyone with a gun, especially a gun which has a potential of mowing down a classroom full of kids.
Foreign policies pending, I believe it is safe to say that my front yard will be vacant of any red army within the foreseeable future. That being said, what is this absolute need for owning an M-16 or AK-47? Personal civilian weaponry should be limited to a lower caliber handgun, say a .22 caliber, perhaps with a maximum 4-round capacity. Depending on one’s aim, such is sufficient to either terminate the threat or to get oneself killed. If one finds the four round maximum a bit hard to swallow, perhaps one should learn how to shoot. One bullet in the head should suffice. For that rare occasion when a threat survives a hit into the brain, two bullets should tighten the bell curve. Three bullets in the head will lift some eyebrows, while four will have exceeded current statistical data concerning the human mortality rate involving gun shot wounds to the head. Consider the forth bullet the “windy day” bullet.
Let’s end this “gun law extremism” once and for all. There’s no reason to strip good people their right to preserve their own life, yet at the same time, their is no practical need for a bazooka (foreign policy pending). The only people in this country who have any bussiness hauling an assault rifle around are those we pay to protect us.