The M-1 garand rifle is a semi-automatic weapon that was standard equipment for the infantrymen during WWII and the Korean war. That rifle holds a clip containing 8 rounds of 30 caliber ammo in which to defend themselves and their positions from all directions. The infantrymen and his M-1 rifle got the job done. If you were in the Marine Corps, that rifle stayed next to you the whole time you served on active duty whether you were in combat or not.
So why do rifles in the hands of civilians have to hold more rounds of ammo than an M-1 rifle, especially during such dangerous times? Is it a macho thing? Is it just because we believe the second ammendment gives us the right? Does it make us feel big? Do hunters really need more rounds and if so how do you justify that when gun violence is out of control in civilian life. Why should any rifle or hand gun hold more rounds of ammo than a military or law enforcement weapon?
I believe reasonable people would recognize that they should not. The NRA, politicians and those that oppose this reasonable concept are at odds at what has been taking place in America. Everyone has to give up something for the common good. The NRA's statement that the answer to a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun sounds good but has not stopped the gun violence even though there are more good guys with guns than bad guys.
One day some one with "standing" will challenge the second ammendment in court. When that day comes this writer is not so sure the Supreme Court, no matter its make up, will interpret the ammendment with as liberal a decision as the NRA believes. The NRA believes the second ammendment is so liberal, any one can own and carry a gun with out restrictions.
It takes reasonable people with understanding to face the gun violence problem and come up with a reasonable solution that works. Tough talk has not and will not solve the problem and we know the NRA's position never will.
This commentary written by John Lucia.
No comments :
Post a Comment