The latest figures say that 86 percent of current National Rifle Association members support an assault weapons ban and universal background checks. So if this is the case, that means that Wayne LaPierre (the NRA's spokesperson) only really speaks for, at the very most, 14 percent of current NRA members. That is giving him the benefit of the doubt by saying if you aren't for it, you must be against it, which may or may not be the case. So I ask you, how can someone only speak for 14 percent of any organization's members and still be considered relevent or right? That's right, they can't! Wayne LaPierre only speaks for the manufacturers, whose only concern is making as much money as they can. They don't care who gets killed as long as they can profit from it.
People who argue that "you don't hunt deer with an assault weapon" miss the intent of the "Framers" because it allows for us to take on our own government in the case of it being overtaken by tyrants. But let's consider that reality for argument's sake. If it were taken over and you successfully fought them off from your property, then what? You couldn't ever leave your home. You couldn't conduct any business or buy or sell anything. You essentially would be quarantined on your own land and subject to prison or death if you tried to leave until you starved to death or gave yourself up. So, in this modern day of advanced military capabilities and drone strikes, what good would it do you to take on the full might of the government?
It all comes down to you being brainwashed to believe that you actually could take on the government and win. This isn't some fairy tale, Hollywood movie here. All we are asking is that the sane and realistic law-abiding citizens give up the right to possess these "man-killer" weapons on their own, to limit their access to the criminal element.
The pro-gun people testifying at the hearing in Washington before the Senate Judiciary Commitee gave example after example of citizens who fought off attackers and successfully defended themselves from criminals with guns. But, I noticed that not one person testifying at the hearing gave a single example of anyone fighting off an attacker and successfully defending themselves with any gun that would be banned (assault type weapon), or that they used any large-capacity magazine clip in that defense. And you know as well as I, that if they had one single example of that happening, they would talk about that instance, and that instance alone!
Not one of their anecdotes involved an assault weapon or high-capacity magazine or any other weapon subject to gun-control laws, existing or suggested, not one! And don't forget that high-capacity clips are a novelty item and not subject to Second Amendment rights, according to the U.S. Supreme Court.
Please don't fall for the fear-mongers chants of "they are going to come for all your guns next." It just isn't going to happen; the U.S. citizens will never allow that to happen. It is a constitutionally protected right. But the first line of the Second Amendment says "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state...." So what about the regulations? The time has come for the part of the Second Amendment that says, "Well regulated." Don't you agree?
James F. Gilbert