Tuesday, June 14, 2016

WHY WE NEED GUN CONTROL ... AND WHY RONALD REAGAN WOULD AGREE

Here are 4 reasons why we need common sense gun control, with some Ronald Reagan-inspired insights in numbers 2-4 ...

1. WE'RE NO LONGER BACKWOODS FRONTIERSMEN: From Rolling Stone magazine we get one of the best reasons why we need to stop paying attention to the NRA terrorists who claim the 2nd amendment applies to modern weapons in the modern world ...

... the Second Amendment was written by slaveholders before we had electricity, much less the kind of weaponry that would-be murderers can buy today. But sure, if you think it's that precious, we can compromise: If you love the Second Amendment that much, feel free to live in a powdered wig and shit in a chamberpot while trying to survive off what you can kill with an 18th century musket. In exchange, let those of us living in this century pass some laws so we can feel safe going to class, or the movies, or anywhere without worrying that some maladjusted man will try to get his revenge by raining death on random strangers.
____________________________


To help buoy the point made here, let's take another look at this graphic example of how our world has changed ...


_____________________________


2. REAGAN SUPPORTED AN ASSAULT WEAPONS BAN?: Back in 1989 Ronald Reagan effectively called for a ban on assault weapons ...




3. REAGAN SUPPORTED GUN CONTROL TOO?: With the support of the NRA Governor Reagan repealed open carry laws in California when he signed the Mulford Act in 1967. To be sure, the law was aimed at the Black Panthers (you be the judge on that one), but the fact remains Ronald Reagan made it clear that gun control in America can happen. 




4. GOOD GUY WITH A GUN?: Then we have the reality behind the "good guy with a gun" argument ...



Let's also keep this in mind: Since 9/11 white right-wing terrorists have killed twice as many Americans as radical Islamists. Why aren't we talking about this?  

Some afternoon reading; below are three good discussion articles that cover guns in America ...
Washington Post: "What 'arms' looked like when the 2nd Amendment was written."

Rolling Stone: "4 pro-gun arguments we're sick of hearing." 

Snopes: "Harvard Flaw Review: No, a Harvard University Study did not prove that areas with higher rates of gun ownership have lower crime rates." 

- Mark 

2 comments:

Cheryl said...

Exactly!

smokinbarrel said...

One problem with your argument. The sole purpose of the 2nd amendment was/is not self defense.
The sole purpose for the 2nd is the security of a free state. The founders knew that the only way to keep the govt. from over reaching was if the citizens had a way to stop them. Every right that you hold dear, Freedom of speech, freedom from illegal search and seizure, life liberty and property... are all protected by our right to bear arms. Without the 2nd amendment the constitution of the United States of America is not worth the paper it is written on. So that brings up a real problem with gun control of any kind. If we are to be armed to stop the govt. from over reaching, how does it make any sense when the govt. we may need to reign in gets to determine the tools we use to do it? One final thought. The Musket you described that is the firearm the founding fathers had in mind when they wrote the constitution was in fact a military weapon. The same type carried by our troops at the time. So no, they had no idea that one day we would have access to AR-15's, but they could never have imagined that the US Military would have access to F-35's either.