When are people going to realize the lunacy of these laws. This woman owned a LEGALLY purchased firearm, but could not carry it on her person to protect herself. Her father DIED to protect her and her mother. And then her mother died trying to protect her father. Even though there is a chance she could miss this scumbag, there is just as good of a chance she could have killed him and stopped the whole situation BEFORE her father got killed. But we will never know if she could have hit him or not now will we.
But to me here is the whole thing in a nutshell. Criminals don't by definition follow laws. The killer in this matter did not follow the exact same law concerning carrying a weapon that Suzanna did. So the only person that law affected were the innocent. It got them killed and protected the maniac. Think about this, she was intelligent enough and responsible enough to buy the gun, but according to the law she was not intelligent or responsible enough to carry it and to use it for the exact purpose it was made for.
Now I am not saying I want to turn the US back into the old wild west. But I firmly believe that only basic, very basic, gun control laws should be in place. We don't need rotary cannons and such. But for regular firearms, there should be, and I would argue there is already, a right to carry to all citizens except convicted felons.
And for the comment she made at the end, It is right on the mark. When the framers of the constitution wrote the second amendment, it was expressly to allow the citizenry to protect itself from the government if they thought the government was out of control. If the government thinks guns are so bad, why don't they start gun control by giving up all of their weapons first?
Re: strong lady
Member #: 61931
Registered: 9/16/2008
Posted:
963
Occupation:
Tower Contractor
Location:
PA
Personal:
mid 50s
Experience:
~37 years
There are 2 replies to this message
