My rant about gun control and the Dr. Suzanna Gratia Hupp Gun Control Testimony
[this is my response to a YouTube video of Congressional or Senate testimony that was making the rounds in the wake of the recent shootings--that was a number of years old]
1) Its worse than irrelevant to the Obama changes in the gun laws.
This literally says nothing about the recent controversy–its an argument about local gun laws in Texas not national ones and certainly not the recent ones. In fact, she unintentionally makes an argument for the gun clip limits. She said it did take a second or two to re-load. Guess what? Over the course of a couple clips….thats a couple lives. Can gun enthusiasts really make the argument that the need to buy smaller clips really hurts their rights???????? Or moreover that that fun with guns is worth the lives of say 10 saved that aren’t killed by the smaller clips by the extra time to re-load?????
2) The precedent for limits on products like guns.
A. Especially when there are limits on medicines, illegal drugs, cars, and every other product on the market. You have to be 16 & have a license to drive a car–you also have to have insurance & in some states I believe you have to take drivers ed. Also, your simple license won’t let you drive a large semi–as different levels of risk are applied–you have different amounts of restrictions.
B. We have first amendment rights–but we can’t yell fire in a crowded theatre (at least metaphorically). Also, those same restrictions keep TV theoretically safe for your daughter. They ensure the public safety. The same principle applies in the case of guns. The first amendment was written perhaps as absolute (arguable as its more conditional in nature, but anyway)
C. Lets instead talk about how the NRA systematically cranks up the fear-factor for no reason or how the NRA systematically guts our gun laws–putting innocents & police at risk. Thats the real substance of whats going on in this discussion.
3) Limits simply make rational sense in a world with. Limits are tantamount to more responsible gun ownership and markets.
A. Plus, literally drunk and insane people could previously get guns at gun shows and its simply not rational or smart for that to take place.
B. Guns shouldn’t be sold like a black or a gray market. Black and gray markets don’t make for quality law enforcement or justice. Bring transparency to the sale of weapons. Closing that loophole–that seems pretty rational to me and pretty pro-law enforcement as well. I fail to see how our gun laws should be beholden to the 1770’s.
4) Where is the best argument for self-defense & guns? Actually, gun limits create better self-defense and a better value on life.
A. And lets not forget that the more weapons are used in suicides than in self-defense. The value of life is clearly on the side of moderate controls–like clip size & lunatics not being able to jump through legal loopholes in the law. People at gun shows should be held to the same standard as everyone else. Thats called justice and the rule of law.
B. Why is the NRA standing up against things that actually HELP responsible people who sell and own guns??? Ultimately its about responsible gun ownership….and whatever the NRA says….it doesn’t stand for responsible gun ownership–if you look at who stands to profit–and not even gun owners as much as they stand for the stockholders of gun companies who have made a pretty penny off these controversies.
C. Maybe the assault weapon ban will work…maybe it wont…..but at least we will have tried to make an earnest effort to protect our children and innocents.