Tuesday, February 5, 2013

Gun Control – An Eroding of Individual Rights?

With the recent school shootings, people are once again hollering about gun control. As a responsible gun-owner this concerns me a great deal. Why? Well, what I see happening has been a slow degradation of the right to bear arms by law abiding citizens, while criminal elements, who certainly don’t obey the law, become ever more armed.

That our current president announced his new gun laws surrounded by young children is irony at its greatest. The implication is these that children asked him to do something to protect them from guns, and he was jumping in to save them. But since when do children have the maturity or knowledge to make gun laws? We don’t let children create traffic laws, recommend police procedures, or run the government (though some might contend that they would do better than our current leaders; at least children know they can’t spend money they don’t have, and that it isn’t moral to steal from other children who have worked hard to earn money). These children with Obama were obviously parroting information they heard from their parent and teachers, but using the parents and teacher wouldn’t have offered the same great photo op.

Most reasonable people don’t object to certain gun controls. I wouldn’t care, for instance, if owning a machine gun by an individual was prohibited, but the government doesn’t or can’t enforce the gun laws we already have in place. What’s the point of adding another to the books?
For example, Washington DC (61.4 sq. miles of land) has some of the strictest gun laws in America, and yet a few years ago police ended months of an undercover operation by arresting 70 people and confiscating 161 guns, including automatic rifles and handguns with silencers. Grenades and a rocket launcher were also offered for sale to agents.

There’s no way that element, apparently flourishing in that small area, is going away. I hate to repeat this overused phrase, but the end result is always the same: “If you outlaw guns, only outlaws will have guns.” The law abiding people give them up, but criminals will not. The fact is that taking guns away from responsible citizens only puts those children in Obama’s photo op more at the mercy of criminals. Without guns how can the average citizen protect his home? Or her family when they are accosted at a bus stop or in a mall? Just do a search on the Internet and you’ll see story after story about people defending their homes and their family. Many of those people would be dead now if they hadn’t legal access to a gun. (More, I suggest, than the casualties at school shootings.) If the average responsible citizen didn’t have the right to bear arms, criminals could do whatever they wanted without fear because the police simply can’t be everywhere. We must do our part. We have the right to protect our families.

Or do we? The bottom line is do you uphold the Constitution, including the right to bear arms or don’t you? Because that’s what is really at stake here, a slow eroding of all our rights. We’ve seen that already in how the government steals hard-earned money from people to redistribute in what is quickly becoming a socialist (and lazy) country. I say enough is enough!
My heart goes out to the victims in school shootings. I feel for their families and I understand their desire for some good to come of this. But I don’t believe taking guns from good people will help. Some suggest that perhaps instead of taking guns away from law-abiding citizens, we should train teachers and others to carry thems. I’m not saying that’s the answer, but if I were a teacher, I’d certainly get myself trained and begin carrying a gun. I’d shoot at least a hundred rounds a month to stay in practice, and if a boy came in my school, I’d pull out my gun from my holster (not from a locked drawer) and do what I needed to protect those children.

You may be appalled. You may say we must prevent that kind of world at all costs. Well, then give up your gun and try to steal your neighbor’s, and when you’re knifed on the street or your son is shot dead in front of you at a mall, you can wonder why that criminal still had a gun.

(Originally posted here by Teyla Rachel Branton. Reprinted with permission.)


  1. Thank you for posting this, Rachel. I fully agree with you on this issue. If guns are outlawed, then really only the criminals would have access to them. I was at Virginia Tech with my young family when the tragedy occured. As a matter of fact, my husband was right outside the building with our infant son back then. Great people that we knew lost their lives that day and we all still wonder about the different outcome had Virginia Tech not held their no gun policy and if those teachers/students/school guards were actually armed. This entire controversy is simply outrageous and it tramples on our rights as citizens.

  2. Thanks for your comment, Ioana. As DM Andrews said on Facebook:

    "Sometimes we forget the main purpose of the 2nd Amendment: to ensure the people always have access to a level of firepower that can thwart any attempt by the government to enslave them. I'm no expert, but I would imagine handguns alone would put the people at a serious disadvantage. No one has any right whatsoever to restrict the property of the law-abiding, and that includes weapons. Gun-control advocacy baffles me: from every angle it is simply illogical, unprincipled and out of touch with the lessons of history. The (reasoned) argument for gun control simply doesn't exist."

    I think he's right on many levels. This isn't really about guns, it's about control. We can't let it get to the point that criminals or the elite are the only ones with access to guns.


Because of harassment in connection with the copyright infringement of one of my novels, I have to moderate posts. Sorry for the pain! Your comment will post as soon as it has been approved.