(ThyBlackMan.com) Advocates for gun control can never actually define what gun control means. There is also not a uniformed agreement of what gun control should look like. This is exactly why we have over five-thousand laws on the books from the municipal to the federal level surrounding various gun control measures and here’s the news flash, criminals still don’t abide by them, nor do they care about the laws – hence the definition of criminal(s); someone who willfully broke the law(s).
Gun control laws, I would argue to some degree, it would be reasonable along the lines of preventative measures to protect children: i.e., safety locks, storage, and even supervisory use for children under the age of 18. That would be literally it when it comes to gun control laws. Those who argue for the ban of guns or restriction of gun ownership have not found themselves in a position in life where a gun was useful or the need to defend themselves or others. They are typically also a population of people that are generally insulated from society at-large and will not place themselves in arenas where the propensity for violence will occur.
The second amendment is quite clear, I’ll spare you the details here, but the phrase “The right to keep and bear arms SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED.” seems to always get overlooked when the topic of gun control comes up – especially in conversations about banning “assault weapons” and/or “Red Flag” laws. If you read the bill of rights, you will notice no other right is enshrined with the words “shall not be infringed”. The framers of the Constitution understood how critical that fundamental right to self-preservation, self-protection, and the protection of property and others who may be defenseless was critically important in maintaining this Republic not only from its own government, but from foreign invaders, and from fringed members of within their own society. Have you noticed; this country has not seen foreign aggression from other nations since the Revolutionary War? It isn’t because of technology or the lack of will to fight, it’s because everyone understands that there is a whole population who is potentially armed to the teeth and will kill us if we tried to invade.
I am a gun owner and gun carrier. I am trained and licensed. I’ve served this nation for over 22-years in the United States Army and been on three combat tours to Iraq and a contingency operation tour to Kuwait. I have lived in Europe and traveled around to various European countries to include Canada. What I have found in all these locations is that the citizens of this country live relatively peaceful lives and when violence strikes it is by way of vehicles, knives, bats, and bombs. On a few occasions guns are involved. Have you heard about banning or controlling cars, knives, bats, or bombs? Why is that? I’ll tell you why, because these items are recognized as essential tools of society for whatever reason and their nefarious use is blamed on the person not the tool. The very same argument can be and should be used for guns. Guns are simply a tool.
In Iraq, our fear was roadside bombs known as Improvised Explosive Devises (IEDs) they can be found stuffed in dead cows in the road, in potholes, and even embedded into the road by well skilled construction crews. We weren’t concerned too much about gunfire. Imagine if IEDs became a concern in the US because guns became unavailable or restricted. I’ll take you back to Oklahoma 1995, Timothy McVeigh and Terry Nichols loaded up a moving truck full of fertilizer and parked it in a parking garage of the Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building and killed dozens. September 11, 2001, hijackers flew airplanes into buildings killing thousands. Where is the conversation on banning trucks, fertilizer, and planes – even buildings for that matter?
It is hypocritical and nonsensical to want to target a tool for drastic control measures and punish the law-abiding for the non-law abiding. It is asinine to advertise gun free zones and tell someone they can’t carry a gun because it may scare others. Gun laws that are restrictive or of a banning nature are emphatically and categorically unconstitutional. If we are so concerned for the safety of children or others, then I welcome the conversation to control and/or ban every tool out there that can potentially be used in “mass” murder. Until then, miss me with the fake outrage.
Staff Writer; Randy Purham
This brother is a Former US Congressional Candidate for the House of Representatives for the state of Alaska At-Large. He is the CEO of Purham & Associates, LLC and Host of Purham & Associates Show on TECNTV.com.
One may also want to check out; Gun Control: MORE GUNS, Not Less.
https://thyblackman.com/2023/05/18/gun-control-more-guns-not-less/
