Disclaimer: The following is my opinion. No one else’s but my own. Well, some of you may agree with it, making it your opinion as well, but the point is, I speak completely and totally for myself. And I do it with sarcasm, flare and attitude befitting a person half my age. Not sorry. I have researched my points, as I always do in these situations but some arguments in this debate simply warrant nothing more than a raspberry from sixteen year old me in response.
Bullet point #1 – Banning guns won’t make them go away any more than banning cocaine.
WELL THEN by all means, let’s just make everything legal and available to everyone, regardless of criminal history or psychiatric health, because making things illegal doesn’t solve any problems ever. I honestly can’t put together a logical argument against this because it’s an illogical argument to begin with. So I resort to sarcasm, my weapon of choice.
Bullet point #2 – Banning guns is a violation of the Second Amendment
This, to me, is a very American way of thinking. Well, I mean, of course it is because the Second Amendment is a strictly American problem…. but first of all, no one is trying to ban guns. They are trying to ban guns which have no purpose in this world other than to kill humans. I mean, for real, how often are military personnel called upon, in the line of duty, to hunt big game? Or small game? Or squirrels? Military weapons are designed to kill humans, and as many humans as possible as quickly as possible. Yes. This is a defensive strategy. However, this is not a defensive strategy that needs to be employed in the average domestic civilian home. The next time your home is invaded by a platoon of thirty enemy soldiers we can talk about your need for an automatic or semi-automatic weapon that holds more than 10 bullets at a time. Until then… Until then, the Second Amendment doesn’t say a word about how many bullets a person has the right to load into their firearm or how many of those bullets they should be allowed to expel in a given period of time.
Subsequently, to play devil’s advocate, knives, swords, slingshots, bows and arrows, rocks, beer bottles, baseball bats, golf clubs and forks are all possible “arms” as well (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/arm, scroll down to definition 2 that says nothing about guns). The Second Amendment allows the “right to keep and bear arms” not “keep and bear firearms.” Which kind of makes your argument invalid and all that other stuff I said before unnecessary, but there it is.
Bullet point #3 – Hitler took guns away from the Austrians too.
Wow, really? Really? John Howard took guns away from the Australians and they seem to be doing okay for it, but you’re going to go with Hitler? Once again… there is no logic to be disputed here. Just fear mongering and hate. I can’t argue with that. Honestly, having read Australia’s gun laws, I think Obama’s “Nazi” gun control is too lenient. Sure, baby steps, fine but I am kind of in love with Australia’s regulations. Yeah, okay, I’m a flaming liberal, whatever (you should totally hear that in an insubordinate teenaged voice, and imagine me rolling my eyes as I say it), but if you are a law-abiding citizen with no real plans to harm other humans with your weaponry, rules and regulations really shouldn’t be an issue. There is no logical reason anyone should need to buy a gun on the spur of the moment; 28 days is perfectly reasonable, if you are a rational, logical thinking person who plans to use said gun for lawful purposes. Also, I see NOTHING wrong with being asked to prove why you need a sixth, seventh, twenty-eighth firearm to protect your home or livestock or to hunt for food. But, among other things, Americans have this weird mentality: “If it has proven successful (15 years is a pretty good time test, I think) in other countries, then we absolutely must avoid it like the gods damned plague because there is NO POSSIBLE WAY it could ever work here.”
Please excuse my sarcasm. Or don’t, whatever, I really don’t care what you do with my sarcasm. But it is the biggest reason I’ve avoided posting a response to this issue. Because some of the (my) opposition’s arguments are so blatantly absurd that sarcasm really is the only rebuttal. That and banging my head against a wall until either I pass out or the concussion makes their arguments start to sound sensible. Some of the arguments are logical, misguided and misinformed (the arguments about the Second Amendment, for example) but logical enough. Most…are not.
There are several more points I could cover here but I think these are the main ones and do well to share my opinions with everyone else. Feel free to comment. Flame me if you wish – I won’t respond if you do and will probably delete your comment but feel free to exercise your First Amendment right to call me a flaming liberal (there, I’ve done it twice, now, so it will really just make you look silly if you do it too) or whatever other name you dream up. Whatever, it’s out of my head now, I can move on.