Skip to main content
Report this ad

See also:

The Healthy Violence Of America

This firearm is similar to the gun used - Tucson AZ shooting - 1/7/2011
This firearm is similar to the gun used - Tucson AZ shooting - 1/7/2011

In lieu of Saturday’s shooting in Tucson Arizona, Rep. Pete King (R-N.Y.) wants to create legislation that makes it illegal to carry a weapon within a 1,000 ft of a federal official.

What about safety of American citizens that just happen to be in the way of a stray bullet? Such unfortunate accidents are becoming more common as time passes. Where's our protection?

The NRA (National Rifle Association) has a dream of every single American citizen to carry a gun. However many American citizens do not want the United States to become a society that demands carrying a gun for safety.

The NRA is famous for lobbying our politicians to ensure the gun industry remains profitable. How does the NRA financially remain in business? To become a member, the cost is $35 annually. In addition to such individual contributions, follow the money trail from the gun manufacturers, ammunition manufacturers, etc. The gun industry wants to ensure high profits.

The NRA’s job is to support and advance ownership of guns. Therefore this industry frequently quotes the second amendment from the US Constitution Bill of Rights as a defense to continue their mission of allowing anyone gun ownership, in spite of the obvious danger. The second amendment title reads – The Right To Bear Arms. The amendment description is as follows: 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 infringed.

We must remember that the second amendment was written over 200 years ago, guns could shoot one bullet and then it took a minute or two to load the next bullet. Plus the second amendment was written before the birth of assault weapons, before police departments that were a phone call away, before mass media communication, before telephone communications, etc. Back then it was necessary to own a gun, because if someone attacked your premises, you did not have a way to communicate your Immediate need for help.

Today Americans are in the path of bullets intended for someone else. Kids are shot walking to school or playing outside. Adults may be the victim of an unintended stray bullet while watching TV inside their home.

Is this what our founding fathers intended?


  • Ed in MD 4 years ago

    Actually, if you read the Federalist papers and the founders writings, yes, it is what they meant

  • Profile picture of Pam Brammann
    Pam Brammann 4 years ago

    Ed in MD, so if I understand you correctly, the founders wanted innocent Americans to be murdered?

  • My View 4 years ago

    First of all, the Federalist Papers were just the political opinions of some of the Founders. They were equivalent to today's political blogs. The Federalist Papers do not reflect the intentions of our Founding Fathers nor are they part of the Constitution.

    The NRA exists specifically to benefit the multi-billion dollar gun industry. The NRA board of Directors is made up mostly of gun dealers, and gun industry insiders. They don't give a damn about the rights of law-abiding gun owners. They want to scare you into buying more guns.

  • Mike Lopatka 4 years ago

    The police are not there for the 1.5 million people who use guns to defend themselves every year (per the Justice Department; the actual numbers are probably higher). And they aren't there for the hundreds of thousands of defenseless people who get assaulted either.

    Certain restrictive laws are necessary (eg waiting periods, which we have, and bans on fully-automatic weapons, which we don't), but we should not ignore an entire provision of the constitution. And just so we can be clear and fair here, it's not like gun control activists are honest humanitarians dedicated to eradicating the evils of the NRA. Their agenda is not the public good, but rather idealogy; they manufacture thought. They have no interest in honesty. This is just one example, but look at the "Assault Weapons Ban" of 1994---not a single machine gun, submachine gun, or fully-automatic assault rifle was banned by that bill. It only banned semiautomatic guns. In other words, what gun control activists hold up as a necessary law for preventing criminals from getting military assault weapons didn't even ban any assault weapons, which at the federal level remained legal (per the National Firearms Act of 1934). And they are still legal.

  • Just Don't Lie to Me 4 years ago

    The claim of 1.5 million cases of self defense is a distorted claim by the NRA. According to the Census Bureau’s annual National Crime Victimization Survey there are about 80,000 times a year that firearms are used in self-defense. That's a whole lot less than 1.5 million.

Report this ad