As a staunch Constitutionalist, it pains me to say this, but maybe Americans cannot be trusted with guns. We have too many kids shooting up other kids and other crimes involving guns.
I would always fight tooth and nail to keep the Second Amendment in its entirety, but I can now admit that it would be a bit careless to remain pro-gun without strict regulations.
We no longer need semi-automatic firearms under any circumstances. It provides no real advantage in home defense or hunting and is only a substitute for a man’s one-inch wonder. If you want to play shoot ‘em up, go play your war video games, because you are too much of a coward (or too strongly principled) to join the army.
Now on the topic of the military, we can no longer be inconsistent in our standards for violence in social and governmental matters. A kid bullies another in school, that is a no-no, but a few years later we can give that same kid a gun and tell him to shoot any unidentified person who comes near an opium field. Anyone else see the problem here?
Either tell the bullied kid it is a dog-eat-dog world and he will have to fight back, or do not push your greedy capitalist agenda across the world with bombs and bullets.
We need to implement psychological exams and gun safety training if someone wishes to purchase a gun. We don’t need anybody losing their cool and shooting about 25–30 harmless dogs a day, or 157 people as of Feb. 15, the number killed by cops in this country so far.
RELATED: Topic of the week: Gun control
Since we are on the subject, how about we give them the same regulations on carrying firearms? This actually is a proven world practice. Countries such as Iceland, Norway, New Zealand, Ireland and Great Britain have this in practice, and it works.
In Ireland, only 20 to 25 percent of officers are qualified to use firearms, and the number is similar in Great Britain. Icelandic citizens are very well armed (15th per capita) and the police aren’t, and the crime rate is quite low compared to the rest of the world.
My only concern here is the dishonesty of the government. Will they pass more cops than citizens through bias in the exams? More than likely, so if this is the argument that was eating away at you the entire last paragraph, why not make the exam anonymous and from a foreign, third-party organization?
We leave ourselves here, no more bullets flying, but what about crazies with pointed sticks? Let us bring in mental illness and Big Pharma being part of the problem here. We have established maybe it is best that psychological exams and a safety course need to take place before being approved to purchase a gun, but what if Timmy’s ADHD pills induce suicidal or homicidal thoughts?
Perhaps it is time for both sides to admit they have heard this very line in a commercial and giving someone a gun on this medication is not a bright idea (though it does not deter them from obtaining a pointed stick).
A gun ban is already in place for those who possess a medical marijuana card. Many people in states that have legalized marijuana for medical use had a time limit to turn in their guns or face severe penalty.
If marijuana users, taking a safe herbal remedy with no history of giving men a violent tendency (unless we include reefer madness), must turn in their guns, people taking legal amphetamines cooked up in a lab should definitely have to turn in their guns.
Now, this has been a mélange of ideas Congress will never take into consideration due to either unwillingness to compromise or an inability to make some good profit off the ideas. Though I must conclude this saying a pretty outrageous claim that about nobody is going to like.
If the government is unwilling to turn over their guns, I do not expect anybody else to turn over theirs. If the government wants to be for the people, and they truly do not want these school shootings and executions of minorities carried out by the police to keep happening, they will subject both the civilians and themselves to staunch regulations.
Follow Daily Wildcat on Twitter.