Posted: 3/2/2009 9:42:53 AM EDT
|
I'm in the process of writing a long, detailed letter to be sent to members of congress in support of 'assault weapons'. This is the first portion. Tell me what you think. And feel free to use it in letters or emails yourself if you think it will help:
. . . . "One of the main arguments made by proponents of an assault weapons ban is that these weapons are designed for one purpose… to kill people. In my opinion, this is entirely correct. I don’t pretend that an AR15 was conceived as a varmit rifle - even though it performs that job admirably. I don’t pretend that a semi-auto AK-47 variant was designed as a hunting rifle, though again it would suit the task quite well. And I don’t pretend that a folding stock 12-gauge with an 18” open choke barrel and extended magazine is the best weapon to take birds on the wing. Can it be used in that manner? Sure. Do most people buy them for such use? Not really. So why am I in agreement with the anti-gun camp on this issue when I wholeheartedly believe that we should have access to ‘assault weapons’? Because of one simple fact… the 2nd amendment to the constitution GUARANTEES our right to keep and bear arms, IN THE CONTEXT OF DEFENSE. It doesn’t take much insight to realize that the framers of our constitution were not speaking of hunting or sporting use. They were speaking of defense. They were speaking of arms meant to kill other human beings. Not because they condoned murder, violence, or assaults. But because they believed the right to defend ourselves, on an individual as well as a national basis, was of utmost importance. The recent Supreme Court ruling of DC vs Heller clearly and utterly clarifies this point. It is our right to own weapons to defend ourselves… not just to shoot rabbits or quail. Since it is my right, and the right of every other law abiding citizen of this country, to use firearms for defense of ourselves, our loved ones, and our community… then how can we be denied weapons that are best suited to this task? I submit that doing so is effectively the very same as denying us our right to use firearms for defense in the first place. A scoped bolt-action rifle might work great for deer & elk, and a 22” over & under shotgun might be the ticket come dove season, but you’d be just about as well off using either as a club to defend yourself against armed intruders. Acknowledging the right of citizens to defend themselves with firearms, while at the same time denying access to the firearms best suited to the task contradicts the 2nd amendment and the Supreme Court’s interpretation of it. Plain and simple. It’s like guaranteeing our children the right to an education, and then supplying them without outdated texts. It’s like guaranteeing our populace the right to affordable medical care, and then treating them with blood-letting and voodoo. Like the VAST MAJORITY of Americans who own the weapons our opponents wish to ban, I’m not a criminal, have no desire to harm anyone, and hope I’m never forced into a situation where I have to use a firearm in defense. My AR15 isn’t an ‘assault weapon’… because I don’t use it as an offensive weapon. It’s a ‘defense’ rifle. And owning it couldn’t be any more in keeping with what the founders of our nation had in mind when they penned the 2nd amendment. I shouldn’t have to make excuses for what it’s intended for, or pretend it’s only use is for putting dinner on the table. |
Win a FREE Membership!
Sign up for the ARFCOM weekly newsletter and be entered to win a free ARFCOM membership. One new winner* is announced every week!
You will receive an email every Friday morning featuring the latest chatter from the hottest topics, breaking news surrounding legislation, as well as exclusive deals only available to ARFCOM email subscribers.