"Our Founding Fathers would have been shooting by now."
This could probably get out of hand quickly, IMO.......remember the Gov't can and has shut down internet communications before. Who would know...?
I think you missed the salient point MCP made. Those arrested were people in illegal possession, you know, the nice folks who
violated their parole; were felons in possession; that sort of thing. No doubt a few just got picked up on warrants once they were identified.
People weren't being arrested solely because they possessed a particular type of weapon, at least that isn't what I think MCP said happened.
I hope he pops up to clarify what he was describing.
The people killed are just as dead. They just don't count for as much in a car crash resulting from any form of deliberate or merely thoughtless irresponsibility as they do when the gun is involved. Isn't that convenient?
The comparison is perfectly reasonable.
And of course there were the usual idiots with illegal drugs in plain sight when they invited the officers in.
But my main point is that anyone that says "it will never happen" does not know what they are talking about. I was part of the task force (still have the t-shirt) and they came looking for my rifle even though they knew exactly where I was (in uniform, on duty, thirty witnesses) when Sonny was shot.
The anti's are going to try to get the most restrictive ban possible passed.
It is up to like-minded gun owners to make their voices heard and limit if not eliminate their ability to infringe on our rights.
The second amendment was created in a time long before 30rd mags and red dots. But, when the 2A was created it was designed to allow people to take home their weapons after the revolutionary war and be allowed to posses them without persecution. It allowed the people to posses the same weapons as the government and stand ready as a militia to protect AND challenge the union if necessary. Fast forward 2+ centuries and you get to today where the government has mini guns, drones, 5k pound bombs and nukes. The people are grossly under armed compared to the government. The only advantage the people (militia) have is sheer numbers. Being allowed to posses the same (similar) handheld weapons as most of the members of the military does nothing but fit the status quo as it was when the 2A was written.
I hope that makes sense to everyone
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk, please excuse typos.
Drunk driving fatalities in the US are about the same as firearm fatalities - about 10k per year. But more die from alcohol abuse, so alcohol kills many more than firearms per year. And many innocent children are killed each year due to drunk driving.
Yet alcohol is freely available. I only need to be 21. There is no background check when I buy some Stella or MGD. The reason is that alcohol use is widely accepted and alcohol is understood to be an product that, if used, responsibly, should not lead to death. There is no talk of an "alcohol culture." And do you not find it odd that Bloomberg does not crusade against alcohol?
Guns and 2A have become political issues heavily, but not exclusively, drawn along party lines. The societal cost of alcohol abuse likely exceeds the societal cost of gun "abuse" and crimes.
So I respectfully request that if you want to engage in the argument, then you reply with something other than a rhetorical question. And the answer to that question (Yes, I know it rhetorical) is yes, the comparison is there and is valid.
The comparison does not diminish what happened at Sandy Hook. But one must ask why the public places the burden of alcohol abuse on the abuser, but places the the burden of firearms violence on the manufactures and supporters of firearms. It is this kind of unbalanced and emotional approach that causes concern in 2A supporters.