At least one of the readers doesn’t understand much about guns.
Handguns are potentially useful if you are up against one or two assailants at close range. Most people have little or no chance of hitting a target at more than ten yards with a handgun. Body armor will stop most handgun bullets. Gang members and other criminals use (illegal) handguns because they can conceal them easily.
Rifles are far more powerful and accurate. An AK (2700 fps) or AR (3200 fps) with a large capacity magazine will deter almost any sized group of people. In the rare event that an attacker would be stupid enough to go after someone with a semi-automatic rifle – even a novice can easily hit a target at 50 yards. A moderately experienced shooter can hit a target at 200-400 yards. You can not easily conceal a rifle.
Bolt action rifles are useful for people in offensive positions (hunters and snipers.) They are of limited value as a defensive weapon because they are too slow.
If you are trying to deter a gang from approaching, the best weapons are semi-automatic shotguns and rifles with high-capacity magazines – exactly what Democrats want to take away from you.
Had the first two officers who arrived at Columbine been armed with rifles, they could have ended the massacre much sooner. Many police departments are starting to give rifles to patrol officers. One rifle at the camp in in Norway could have saved dozens of children’s lives. One rifle in the principal’s office at Sandy Hook could have saved dozens of children’s lives.
Rifles kill fewer people in the US than hammers, clubs or fists. Americans are 100X more likely to die in a car accident, than be killed by a rifle.
The “executive orders” of Obama are not harmless proclamations, as some pundits have advanced. These are very cleverly crafted and insidious—the wording has to be given careful attention.
The orders regarding mental health and background checks are particularly onerous. Extending interagency “cooperation” in determining those who are potentially unfit to have arms can be construed to be far reaching.
For example, if a person has been prescribed Prozac, Ritalin, Cymbalta, etc., any time in his or her past history, these persons could, by the wording in the directives, be precluded from passing a background check. Have you taken a sleep aid, such as ambien at any time? This could be construed as a symptom of anxiety by government appointed psychologists.
Couple this with the directive that doctors will have been “deputized” to detect and report any risky individuals, and we have a recipe for wholesale confiscation in our futures.
The delays in waiting periods alone could cost lives. How long would a single woman, for example, have to wait to defend herself? If she has taken a restraining order against a stalker, how long would she have to wait for a permit? Is she anxious about her safety? Takes prozac for anxiety? She may be prevented from defending herself entirely.
We have to fight hard to prevent these becoming law, and not be put to sleep by this crafty regime.
What part of “shall not be infringed” should be abridged?
This is all straight out of the KGB playbook. Everyone spying on everyone else and reporting to the government – for the public good of course.
Was it Toshinmack?
American gang members make up the 6th largest standing army in the world. Get rid of the violent people, and I will consider your gun bans.