Historically, the Second Amendment was established by our founding fathers to serve as a last resort to use against potential governmental tyranny. During the colonial period, Great Britain imposed gun bans on the colonists to prevent any uprising or weaponized rebellion. Based upon experience, the founders did not want a future tyrannical government imposing itself on the American people, so they created the Second Amendment.
Now, we have liberal activists and Democratic politicians telling us that we must ban AR-15 rifles because they are an “assault weapon.” The AR-15 is a semiautomatic. To generalize it as an “assault weapon” is incoherent, because there is no such classification. They often refer to AR-15 rifles as being “weapons of war,” but automatic firearms are used on the battlefield. Automatics are specifically made for combat; however, you must have a specific license to own one. This is typically reserved for present and former military personnel. Therefore, if they ban one semiautomatic firearm, what is to stop them from banning multiple semiautomatics?
Secondly, liberals use the argument that semiautomatics did not exist during the development of the Second Amendment, only muzzleloaders. This serves as a justification for stronger gun control, because “if the founders would see the weapons that are available today, they would change their mind.” This is an assumption without substance, not to mention historically inaccurate.
Should President Trump and the federal government intervene and prevent liberals from posting opinions on social media? “Of course not, that would be a violation of the first amendment!” During that period, the internet did not exist. Using the same logic, the internet and social media can be regulated without any limitation by the First Amendment. This disproves their entire “it didn’t exist back then” argument.
We are also being told that we must start listening to the teenagers that were survivors of the shooting that took place in Parkland, Florida. While I sympathize with their encounter, being the survivor of a mass shooting does not make you an expert on gun violence. Being the survivor of a terrorist attack does not make you an expert on terrorism. Being the survivor of a house fire does not make you as knowledgeable as a fire marshal. With regards to policy, these kids are not knowledgeable on the issue of violence prevention. Presently, they are in stages of grief and emotionalism, which (unfortunately) results in decisions based on their present feelings. We think with our brains, not our emotions. Emotions differentiate; therefore, using them as a basis to make important choices, especially regarding public policy, is irresponsible and will not solve any problems.
If we truly want to make a difference, we need to examine the environments and methods of dealing with students who suffer from psychological problems. Placing such individuals in environments that provoke them to violence is not only unfair to the students that suffer from psychological
Also, we must find better ways to protect children in schools. In Buckhannon, we have trained law enforcement officers stationed at every major school. This is an important step that all schools and counties must take. Politicians in Washington D.C. would never place their valuable money in a bank that is not protected by guards and guns. Therefore, why should we place our children in a school that is not protected by guards and guns? Politicians, are children less valuable than money?
Lastly, we must examine our society. The Washington Post reported that gun ownership has dropped to the lowest in 40 years. Why have mass shootings become a regular occurrence in today’s America, especially when it was rare