Gun laws are a big issue that come up frequently among many circles. Anybody who knows me knows that I am pro-guns. But I want to talk about the topic of machine guns. Aside from a semi-auto, I’ve never held a machine gun. But I do know what they’re capable of: they are capable of rapid fire, death, and fun (if used properly). I’ve seen quite a few videos of people shooting machine guns into lakes or ponds, and it looks fun. Dangerous? Yes, they can be. But you don’t instantly classify shooting a gun under dangerous. You won’t shoot your eye out.
But machine guns have come up in quite a few gun law discussions recently. One News Now says “Larry Pratt, executive director of Gun Owners of America, says the argument is that machine guns are different from other firearms and therefore not protected by the Second Amendment.” How absurd is that? What is the difference in the danger level between a machine gun rather than a semi-auto? Machine guns are simply a new type of weapon in a long chain of technological weapon advancements. Are future weapons, because of their difference from the firearms of the age when the Second Amendment was made, going to be unprotected by the Second Amendment? I should hope not. But the Orlando shooting recently poses a threat to the freedom of guns.
A source tells me that AR-15 weapons and pieces are going out of stock and, what is in stock, is raising in price dramatically. My question is, why? I read where somebody quoted the government in stating that outlawing guns will solve the problem, and then the person quoting proposed the solution: Why not outlaw killing people? Their intent was not to be humorous but to draw out the flaw in the thinking of gun abolitionists: getting rid of guns will not make things safer. The second amendment was made to allow citizens to possess guns, not for mass shootings, but to protect themselves from robbers, villains, and ISIS. If I read my sources correctly, nearly every single “mass” shooting in the news has the shooter connected to ISIS. So now I ask, are guns the issue, or is ISIS the issue? This seems to me a bit of a rhetorical question. I think that the answer is not banning guns but, on the contrary, making them easier to get for American citizens. This action will enable us to defend better in the case of a shooting.
Outlawing guns will make protecting America harder. Citizens will not have firearms and will be vulnerable to attacks. Guns make things easier to fight back, but ISIS does not have to ban guns. This results in ISIS bearing arms and America bearing olive branches.