Am I a Threat?
The mere possession of a firearm by millions law-abiding citizens who have demonstrated responsibility and trustworthiness, is not and should not be a crime just because a miniscule fraction of the population chooses to be irresponsible, untrustworthy, and ultimately criminal. It's the criminals who should be held accountable for their crimes. Firearms owners are not "guilty by association" not should they be treated as potential criminals.
New and stricter gun control legislation will only punish those who already obey the law. It would be like punishing all those who drive cars just because a small few choose to drink and drive. It would be like punishing all Muslims just because a small few choose to commit acts of terror.
The killings in Newtown, like mass-killings elsewhere in our country, were an act of sheer, unimaginable, incomprehensible horror. "Something" does, in fact, need to be done to ensure this type of activity doesn't happen again. This "something", however, should not be an infringement of the Constitutional rights of law-abiding citizens. Enacting new legislation restricting lawful firearms ownership is not the solution; it would only increase the number of those susceptible to violence as they'd be unable to defend themselves.
Lawful firearm ownership is not a crime and law-abiding forearms owners should not be considered criminals (potential or otherwise). All of the mass killings in this country have been perpetrated by individuals who'd previously demonstrated significant mental instability. The real crime is that these mentally unstable individuals were allowed to walk our streets freely despite their well-documented history of illness. If our elected leaders are serious about reducing firearms-related violence -- and they should be -- then the solution must start with removing from our streets the mentally unstable; those who are truly a threat.
See Votes by State
News & Politics