Monday, August 22, 2005
Gun Control
First, let me say that what I think of when I hear about gun control is that you hit what you aim at. Secondly, a gun won't hit it what it isn't aimed at. I have been around guns all my life and have owned them since I was old enough to earn enough to buy one. In all that time and after all those rounds fired, I've never shot anyone and haven't met anyone who did - and I've met some guys who have shot a lot of ammo (Bill, you out there?).
If I thought there was the smallest possibility that political gun control/confiscation would work, I'd be all for it. It hasn't yet and it won't in the future. Contrary to what many seem to understand, most bad acts (if not all) that hurt people are already illegal. If Dickhead One is going to rob and rape someone (robbery and rape being illegal you know), why is he going to rob and rape without a gun simply because owning a gun is also illegal? If Husband Two can blow away Dickhead One before the act is accomplished, at least we can be sure Dickhead One won't be a repeat offender.
This is what I don't get. Why add more laws? Murder, assault, robbery, rape, and stuff like that is already against the law and
This way, if you're just some dude who wants a GAU-12 25mm on the front porch or a 17 year-old punk with a MAC-10, you're covered. If you want to rob a 7-11 of $40 you're going away for life, whether you do it with the MAC-10 or the GAU-12. On the other hand if you just want to admire the workmanship of the six revolving barrels of the GAU-12 or the stamped steel manufacturing of the MAC-10, you're also covered - you can sit on your front porch and enjoy.
We don't need new useless laws, we just need to enforce the current useless laws already on the books.
2fers: National Rifle Association and Ruger .22s
