Spring Break
Gun issue proves too complex for simple solutions
Addison Davis
Issue date: 4/10/09 Section: Ed-Op
Response: Bearing Arms vs. Causing Harm
Our Declaration of Independence suggests the inalienable right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Most people in fact don't want to take away your life, your liberty, or your happiness, least of all the government, as much as it may seem that way. No matter which way you lean. If you feel that having a pistol is what is keeping you alive, you are very free to believe so, but do you need a .50 caliber machine gun mounted on the hood of your car? Do you need a high powered rifle capable of penetrating steel plate and concrete barriers? Do you need bullets that can tear through bullet proof materials? I'm going out on a limb here and saying, "No."
At present, no state in the Union has an outright ban on firearms. On that note, very few states actually have any type of firearm registration laws. Washington, D.C., our wonderful capital, did have a ban on all firearms for more than 30 years. Much to the delight of the NRA and gun owners subject to some incredibly stringent D.C. laws on ownership, the law was decidedly unconstitutional.
When talking about gun control, it is most often in the sense that we need to have registrations, permits, licenses and regulations across the board in every state. Nobody wants to take away your fully loaded nine; they just want to know who's carrying, partly for safety and certainly to tax you. The regulations that members of the government would also like to impose are yet again safety measures. As I said in the beginning of this article, the necessity of weapons isn't under dispute, but the excessive force of weapons is. What is the average American going to do with a military grade assault rifle? The military uses them to kill, it's in the design. The average citizen who buys this is going to do the same thing, kill. Whether it's in self defense or otherwise is a bit irrelevant because this kind of weapon does severe damage. Keeping assault weapons legal for civilian use is a danger to all and the cause of hundreds of murders every year.
Our Declaration of Independence suggests the inalienable right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Most people in fact don't want to take away your life, your liberty, or your happiness, least of all the government, as much as it may seem that way. No matter which way you lean. If you feel that having a pistol is what is keeping you alive, you are very free to believe so, but do you need a .50 caliber machine gun mounted on the hood of your car? Do you need a high powered rifle capable of penetrating steel plate and concrete barriers? Do you need bullets that can tear through bullet proof materials? I'm going out on a limb here and saying, "No."
At present, no state in the Union has an outright ban on firearms. On that note, very few states actually have any type of firearm registration laws. Washington, D.C., our wonderful capital, did have a ban on all firearms for more than 30 years. Much to the delight of the NRA and gun owners subject to some incredibly stringent D.C. laws on ownership, the law was decidedly unconstitutional.
When talking about gun control, it is most often in the sense that we need to have registrations, permits, licenses and regulations across the board in every state. Nobody wants to take away your fully loaded nine; they just want to know who's carrying, partly for safety and certainly to tax you. The regulations that members of the government would also like to impose are yet again safety measures. As I said in the beginning of this article, the necessity of weapons isn't under dispute, but the excessive force of weapons is. What is the average American going to do with a military grade assault rifle? The military uses them to kill, it's in the design. The average citizen who buys this is going to do the same thing, kill. Whether it's in self defense or otherwise is a bit irrelevant because this kind of weapon does severe damage. Keeping assault weapons legal for civilian use is a danger to all and the cause of hundreds of murders every year.
Viewing Comments 1 - 10 of 14
Leo Mulvihill
posted 4/10/09 @ 9:47 AM EST
Dear Mr. Addison Davis;
You should research your position before you make factually and logically unsupportable arguments to emotion.
The largest problem with your argument is you fail to recognize or define what an "assault weapon" is, under the law. (Continued…)
Frank
posted 4/10/09 @ 10:16 AM EST
On the subject of machine guns I can tell you they are not easy to get a hold of. I encourage you to read up on the National Firearms Act.
As for accidents, gun owners should always follow the rules of gun safety. (Continued…)
jason
posted 4/10/09 @ 10:54 AM EST
I suspect that the author doesn't even know the difference between an "assault rifle" and a "hunting rifle" (here is a hint, it is about the same difference between a Ford and a Lincoln). (Continued…)
Bondsman
posted 4/10/09 @ 12:27 PM EST
Just where do you think you can get a military grade assault rifle? They are not sold in stores they can be set to fire many round with one trigger pull, so unless you know a black market dealer that has one or steal it from the military you can not get one. (Continued…)
Gene
posted 4/10/09 @ 12:45 PM EST
Do you have any documentation to suppport the wild claims in this farce of an opinion? I see the CDC reference, but do you know that they include suicides with deaths by firearms?
Do you need. (Continued…)
Andy
posted 4/10/09 @ 2:06 PM EST
I can't believe that 74% of people who took the poll would actually trust Drexel kids (or any college student anywhere) with guns! That's a scary thought. (Continued…)
steve mcconnell
posted 4/10/09 @ 3:23 PM EST
you're an idiot.
you clearly did zero research on this, as well as zero fact-checking. which makes me wonder why you thought this was a good idea to post. (Continued…)
Stacy Litz
posted 4/13/09 @ 7:48 PM EST
You don't "need" any of those things.
But you have the right to have them.
Hell, maybe I like big guns . . . for decoration.
SO BE IT.
TK
posted 4/16/09 @ 1:56 PM EST
Leo,
Well written and informative response.
The 2nd Amendment protects all of the others.
Eric Martin
posted 4/17/09 @ 11:30 AM EST
All comments about the present article aside, it is quite obvious from the poll that students feel they need the ability to defend themselves. Let's look at some of the potential causes for this. (Continued…)
Post a Comment