Posted: 3/8/2003 4:13:40 PM EDT
|
Gun Control Gun control as a whole is a rather primitive way for a less-educated person to show their fear of firearms. Fear is what leads the utopian search for a society with no violence. Although fear is a good thing for the human spirit (as it has lead to discoveries and inventions of great substance), in a political forum, it can be deadly to the American way. Humankind has always had weapons. It is in our nature to use tools, whether for building or destruction. These tools have brought us to where we are today. In this world in which we live, these tools have made travel around the globe possible, made travel to the moon a reality and travel to the next town not take a week. Yet all of these new technologies have also made it possible for human kind to make and deliver weapons of mass destruction. Those who do not understand that, let me make it simple. We would not ban the building of a Boeing 767 because it was used to destroy the World Trade Center. By that same token, Boeing also builds the B-52 and the B-2 bombers, 2 of the most deadly aircraft in the modern world. Designed with the same technology to transport you in a First Class drunken stupor to points around the globe. If you are against the build and private ownership of firearms, why then are you against the private ownership of airplanes? Both were created for the same purpose. Cars, the same thing in which you probably drove or rode to work or school today, are the singularly most destructive manufactured items made by man, and yet the persons against private firearms ownership say that the only thing that will make this country safe is taking away our Second Amendment rights and have all of our private firearms ownership right/freedoms removed from us. If your goal is to remove deadly manufactured items from private ownership, why not start with the most deadly things first? No, the reason we do not outlaw cars, is that they are too convenient for us. It would be too difficult to get rid of cars, even at the expense of people’s lives. So it seems that convenience is more important than safety. Gun control is a sham that is shoved down our throats to convince us that we are in danger. The main goal in the anti-firearms person is the ultimate removal of the Second Amendment. In this society, we consider dumbing things down as to prevent the problem. Instead of teaching people basic firearm safety, they say that the public is too “dumb” to allow private ownership of firearms. The Anti’s say that the only people that should have guns is the government. Yet, this is exactly what our founding fathers wanted to avoid. One of the key points to the Revolutionary War was that we as a People of this great country can live free of the tyranny of government. This includes the ability to change the government as WE THE PEOPLE see fit. If the American Republic is to stand, we can not allow the government to have all of the firearms. As the phrase goes, “When they outlaw guns, only outlaws will have guns.” This includes the Federal Government. We live and die by Constitutional Law, and yet we allow our government to take away our Constitutional Rights and Freedoms everyday. What most Anti’s see is a solution to a violence problem, when in fact what they REALLY have is a social problem. I don’t understand that, take away guns makes the world a safer place? No, because the firearms do not empower a person to commit a crime, the intent was there with or with out a firearm. Vehicular Homicide is a problem as well, should we ban cars? Obviously not. There are also many laws on the books telling “We the People” what firearms we can and can not have. This is plain stupid. The 1994 “Assault Weapons” ban, made it illegal to manufacture a firearm with a bayonet lug (among other things). The rifles made before the ban were allowed to keep their ability to attach a bayonet, why is it a bad thing after Sept 1994? The truth is, it makes no difference. In fact, the 1994 “Assault Weapons” ban didn’t ban any assault weapons. An assault weapon, by definition is fully automatic (one pull of the trigger, multiple rounds expended), and those have been regulated since the 1934 National Firearms Act. The 1994 “Assault Weapons” ban, only affected semi-automatic (one pull of the trigger, one round expended) rifles. What were the affects of the 1994 AW ban? You have the exact same rifles being produced, sans “evil” features. The whole thing was smoke and mirrors. What we need in this country is LESS gun control. That’s right, more citizens owning firearms. You want less violent crime in our beloved (I assume) country? Allow her citizens to arm themselves. When the criminals realize that attempting to rape a woman will probably cost them their lives, rape statistics will go down. When criminals realize that attempting to rob a store or bank will cost them their lives, robbery statistics will decline. Only then will we see our country swerve away from the slippery slope of PC victimization, pacification and apathy. We live in the greatest country of all, and it is our responsibility to make this change. We must no longer take our Constitutional Rights and our Civil Liberties for granted. What must happen? Well for one, getting the public to stop personifying firearms as evil. Firearms are inanimate. There is nothing evil about them. The only evil is the person with ill will who picks up the firearm, or gets in the car, or makes a knife out of a piece of plastic, or who takes a box cutter on an airplane. Secondly, letting the American public believe that the police will be there as soon as they are needed is a crime. I don’t know if you have ever called the police for an emergency, but they are almost never there on time. The media and the movies propagate this fantasy. They want you to feel safe. But the reality is that if you are not armed, you will be at the mercy of the criminal who is. Thirdly, when someone has very negative views on private ownership of firearms, ask them why. I have found most people answer strictly on emotion. They have had anti-gun propaganda shoved down their throats for so long, they have no facts to argue, only emotions. We have movie actors who produce some of the most violent films in history speaking out about how wrong it is for a private party to own a firearm. Does anyone else see the dichotomy of this? The “do as I say, not as I do” attitude is offensive and wrong. When we see this, we must call out the hypocrisy. It is not OK for someone to tell me I can’t have something that they themselves own and will not give up. This country is founded on equality. From the President of the United States, all the way to a new emigrant, we are all equal. Don’t listen to people that feed you lies. Go out and find out for yourself. Make an informed decision. And always remember, just because you don’t believe something is right, please do not take away someone else’s rights. |
|
It was used in a college English class that needed strong belief statements in paper that someone else could evaluate in front of the class. I figured I might turn some heads, but I didn't get my hopes up. How many people read this and only 1 comment? Is it that bad? [peep] |
|
I had a paper to do for my lit class last semester, and I chose James Madison from a pool of American Writers. I started by telling the class how the FFs would be rollin in their graves with all this "living breathing / to be interpreted and molded" constutional attitudes of alot of folks today. I snuck in a few references to the real population control aspects of gun control, and that Gun control was a major part of the nazi/communist/other first steps in creating their oppresive environments. I went into how the 2nd came about, with notes from actual convention discussions; and even into turners rebellion being the racist beginnings of gun control in our country. It was well received, and may have gotten to a few folks, but this is Alabama, and I was more less preachin to the proverbial quire on the issue...one chick even came up to me after class and said your'e totally right, and I tell you one thing, they aint gettin my gun! |
|
Quoted: It was used in a college English class that needed strong belief statements in paper that someone else could evaluate in front of the class. I figured I might turn some heads, but I didn't get my hopes up. How many people read this and only 1 comment? Is it that bad? No, it's good. I liked it. I have an "old" research paper I wrote for my college Comp 2 class on gun control a year and a half ago. However, its about 3200 words long (10 typed double-spaced pages.) I'll post it if there's any demand for it. |
|
Quoted: Did you get through to anyone in the class? or did you just get the blank stare of the sheepal? I thought you did pretty good in your presentation, but you could have used a little more passion, & some statistics. B+ Actually, I tried not to add too much passion to the paper. I made an attempt to pull strings, not shove emotions in peoples faces. The paper started a debate (good thing?) about the pros and cons of gun ownership. |
| Quality post! You gave examples of similar situations, such as the plane example, and cars. You wrote exactly what a persuasive paper should be! If it was my paper, I would tone down the name calling a little bit, and use less harsh words. The liberals do not like words more than two syllables anyway. I might also change the order of the paragraphs around. You seem to have a conclusive paragraph halfway through the paper. Paragraph five seems to be summing it all up, so I might put that as my last body paragraph, or concluding paragraph. Your topic sentences follow your thesis, and paragraphs follow your topic sentences. Overall, an excellent paper! |
|
BlackDog, You have a good start on a hot topic. Nothing will rile up the anti's more than a few select quotes from the founding fathers. Some statement from Jefferson, Washington, and others would worked well in the 2nd or 3rd paragraph. Also, I would have like to see some statements about our inaliable rights to self-protection in the paragraph where you discuss the inability of the police to "protect" civilians. I give it an 82% |