Gun-control advocates are misleading people about firearms and their agenda

President Obama said the following regarding the Aurora Colorado shooting:

“I also believe that a lot of gun owners would agree that AK-47s belong in the hands of soldiers, not in the hands of criminals — that they belong on the battlefield of war, not on the streets of our cities. I believe the majority of gun owners would agree that we should do everything possible to prevent criminals and fugitives from purchasing weapons; that we should check someone’s criminal record before they can check out a gun seller; that a mentally unbalanced individual should not be able to get his hands on a gun so easily. These steps shouldn’t be controversial. They should be common sense.” http://www.businessinsider.com/obama-guns-romney-assault-weapons-ban-aurora-shooting-2012-7

Let’s examine, point by point, his argument for new gun laws.

I also believe that a lot of gun owners would agree that AK-47s belong in the hands of soldiers, not in the hands of criminals [It is already the law that criminals cannot own guns, and misleading to use this as an argument for new laws that affect law-abiding citizens.]

— that they belong on the battlefield of war, not on the streets of our cities. [“On the streets of our cities” is a misleading phrase used to blur the line between guns in the secure possession of law-abiding citizens, and criminals’ possession of guns – which is already illegal.  “Ak-47s” is manipulative terminology used to scare people who are not knowledgeable about guns, because Ak-47s sound scary.

Since the purpose of the Second Amendment is to prevent tyranny, and balance governmental power by distributing arms throughout society instead of concentrating arms with government, it necessitates that capable and effective arms, not just hunting rifles, be in the hands of the people.  The Second Amendment is not a quick word about hunting in between nine other rights that limit government powers.  Thus, the only people who would agree are people who do not understand the purpose of the Second Amendment.  Thus, this is again misleading, and taking advantage of those who do not understand the purpose of the Second Amendment.  Obama, as a Constitutional law professor, should know this.]

I believe the majority of gun owners would agree that we should do everything possible to prevent criminals and fugitives from purchasing weapons; that we should check someone’s criminal record before they can check out a gun seller; that a mentally unbalanced individual should not be able to get his hands on a gun so easily. These steps shouldn’t be controversial. They should be common sense. [These steps are already the law.  Saying this to advocate for new laws further limiting the rights of sane, law-abiding citizens, and giving government the ability to heavily tax and confiscate firearms changes the Constitutional balance of power between the government and the people.  Claiming to want one thing and seeking something else is intentionally misleading]

So the question is, why are misleading arguments being made, and why isn’t the media being as critical as this blog?

Advertisements
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s