Douglas V. Gibbs
It is none of the federal government's business regarding our right to keep and bear arms. What part of "shall not be infringed" do these people not understand? The focus has been on stopping this kind of evil from happening before it happens. At what point does that kind of action become a tyranny? Do we really want the government apprehending people because they think you might be dangerous? You want to stop school shootings? Pack the schools with good guys with guns. Allow some of the teachers to carry, have armed guards available, and while you make sure the students and public knows armed good guys are on campus, don't let them know which of those people are the armed ones! Simple.
The whole point of the Second Amendment is for us to have the ability to defend ourselves not only from criminal activity but from a tyrannical government, which means my Firepower should be as potentially large as theirs. As for the concentration on guns that the liberal-left has it is kind of a ridiculous stance. Let's instead talk about drunk driving. We could say hey to get rid of drunk driving how about we just ban the big scary cars and trucks. And then eventually they will say hey in order to stop drunk driving we need to get rid of mid size vehicles. It's ridiculous. Drunk driving happens because people are irresponsible with their alcohol intake. Shootings happen because people are irresponsible with their use of a tool called guns. More people are killed by knives and hammers, should we ban knives and hammers?
-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary