033009.0145
It’s true. Guns are tools. And it’s the people who spray innocent bystanders with rounds from automatic assault weapons who kill people.
After hearing the argument from the NRA that banning assault weapons only affects law abiding citizens, because a killer will kill whether or not there is a ban on assault guns is very ridiculous. I have believed for a long time that the 2nd amendment is outdated and needs to be refined for modern times, as an organized police force has eliminated the need to maintain a militia. Still, if there are some who want guns for hunting, isn’t the use of an AK-47 to kill an elk overkill? Or an M-16 to spray down a flock of geese? Police officers are generally not armed to the teeth like that; they carry 9mm pistols, and possibly a rifle or shotgun. There is absolutely no need for a civilian to require that much firepower. It only takes one round from even the most inaccurate pistol to kill someone for the sake of “protecting your home.”
I feel doubly strong about this after Secretary Hilary Clinton gave her thought on the drug war in Mexico. It is refreshing to see a government that acknowledges its part in creating the problem. My feelings on how to deal with the drug war is best left for another post, however, the banning of assault weapons in the US will play a part in reducing the access to deadly those weapons via smuggling.
Here is my proposal: if we *must* keep assault weapons on the streets, then the punishment for killing someone with one should be severe. I’m thinking 3 consecutive life sentences for each person killed by the assailant’s gun. Or, since the economy has tanked, perhaps we should issue an 85% tax on automatic rifle ammunition?
read more...
It’s true. Guns are tools. And it’s the people who spray innocent bystanders with rounds from automatic assault weapons who kill people.
After hearing the argument from the NRA that banning assault weapons only affects law abiding citizens, because a killer will kill whether or not there is a ban on assault guns is very ridiculous. I have believed for a long time that the 2nd amendment is outdated and needs to be refined for modern times, as an organized police force has eliminated the need to maintain a militia. Still, if there are some who want guns for hunting, isn’t the use of an AK-47 to kill an elk overkill? Or an M-16 to spray down a flock of geese? Police officers are generally not armed to the teeth like that; they carry 9mm pistols, and possibly a rifle or shotgun. There is absolutely no need for a civilian to require that much firepower. It only takes one round from even the most inaccurate pistol to kill someone for the sake of “protecting your home.”
I feel doubly strong about this after Secretary Hilary Clinton gave her thought on the drug war in Mexico. It is refreshing to see a government that acknowledges its part in creating the problem. My feelings on how to deal with the drug war is best left for another post, however, the banning of assault weapons in the US will play a part in reducing the access to deadly those weapons via smuggling.
Here is my proposal: if we *must* keep assault weapons on the streets, then the punishment for killing someone with one should be severe. I’m thinking 3 consecutive life sentences for each person killed by the assailant’s gun. Or, since the economy has tanked, perhaps we should issue an 85% tax on automatic rifle ammunition?