The gun debate

I support the right for the public to bear arms. I do not object to the purchase of semi-automatic  “assault weapons,” with or without high capacity magazines. Why?

Because out Constitution is our Constitution, and the Second Amendment is very clear. It’s not the purchase of these weapons that is the problem; it’s the illegal use that is the problem.

Banning high capacity magazines, or stopping the public from buying a rifle that looks dangerous won’t solve anything. A standard semi-automatic sporting rifle is just as dangerous. They have smaller magazines, but they can be changed very quickly if some deranged person wants to create mayhem. Shotguns (especially a semi-automatic with a sawn-off barrel) are far more dangerous at short range than “assault-weapons,”) and can be reloaded as being fired, not after all the ammunition is used up.

The problem is that Congress passes laws non-stop, but most are not enforced. I doubt that our legislators have a clue about much of what they are voting on. They just passed a tax law a few weeks ago; you know all about it. It was riddled with pork barrel benefits to certain industries. I wonder how many knew before voting Aye?

The problem is that we have laws against almost everything, but the police and prosecutors selectively enforce them. We have nearly 10,000 federal laws relating to firearms, but the politicians don’t get reelected by insisting that prosecutors enforce them. They get elected by passing new laws. So the band-aid laws pile higher and higher.

It’s good politics to pass laws, and then tout them when the election cycle returns. We don’t need many of them, but they are proposed and past for political reasons, not because of need.

We don’t need more gun laws.