For the record, I think guns are fine. I’m all for the Second Amendment, though I do find the need to form a militia or defend oneself with a firearm to be a bit antiquated. Since President Barack Obama was elected, there’s been grumbling from the gunowners community about imminent gun bans and revision of the Second Amendment.
This paranoia resulted in three dead police officers in Pittsburgh today. (Read about it here.)
Here’s that part that shook me most about this article:
One friend, Edward Perkovic, said Poplawski feared “the Obama gun ban that’s on the way” and “didn’t like our rights being infringed upon.” Another longtime friend, Aaron Vire, said Poplawski feared that President Obama was going to take away his rights, though he said he “wasn’t violently against Obama.”
This is why we need to re-evaluate the need for gun ownership. The argument most often made — and I rediscovered this reading persuasive essays written by several of my freshmen college students — is that “Guns don’t kill people — people kill people.” True, guns only provide the apparatus and it takes a person to pull the trigger. But people are crazy. You could say “Nuclear weapons don’t kill people,” but there’s a reason we don’t entrust just anyone with nuclear weapons.
When it comes to gun-related violence, I’m all for stiffer enforcement and stricter licensing. Right now, it’s legal for U.S. citizens to possess assault weapons. There is absolutely no practical need for assault weapons. Not for sport. Not for collection. NONE.
Three Pittsburgh police officers are dead because one man felt it was his God-given right to possess firearms. This is not the outcome our forefathers had in mind when they penned the Bill of Rights.