by Suspicious Mind

Created on: March 27, 2009

The tragic death of Sean Taylor, had an effect on every NFL fan, the hearts of many went out to his family, his friends, and his teammates and his competitors. Many have voiced that there needs to be more control of firearms, because of this, and other firearm related tragedies. We, the people, have enacted several pieces of legislation to limit where firearms are allowed, and not. One has to wonder, however, if Sean had his own gun, or if someone at Virginia Tech or Columbine High School had a gun, if lives of many couldn't have been saved. If Sean did have his own weapon, and he killed the burglar instead, would the NRA have sought Sean to be an icon for them?

The right to bear arms was put into The U.S. Constitution, because our forefathers agreed that in order to keep government at bay, the people themselves needed to be armed. They had learned the lessons of the all the great Empires of the past, and government control of weapons had led to their fall. Imagine how easy it would be for an army, and not even a good one, to seize control of a major city here in the United States if none of the citizens had access to weapons. Which army would have the easiest time taking over the U.S.? Our own.

This is not to say that all gun control is bad. There are obvious people whom should not own firearms. It would be ridiculous for a violent felon to be allowed to carry or purchase a weapon. People who are mentally unstable, diagnosed non-recovering alcoholics and drug addicts, should not be allowed either. Is there a need for a private citizen to own big powerful anti-tank weapons, or armor piercing ammunition? Yes. Our military is using all of the best technology, and so are those of other countries. Since we are allowed by the Constitution, how are we to form a militia, without them? We should at least have some kind of defense. Even today our government has plans in place to quell "civil unrest" here in the U.S. not only with our own troops, but with those of the UN and other countries. Somehow, Americans have forgotten that the "civil" part of that phrase may themselves as well. Civil unrest is defined as "Of, relating to, or befitting a citizen or citizens", according to Yahoo's dictionary.

Why would they feel the need to prepare for this, when the people they work for, are the same people they are trying to quell? Why do our current leaders, seem to drift further and further away from the Constitution? At one time, that document was treated as the sacred document

• 1
• 2
• Next Page >>