Rather doubtful? I’d say entirely unlikely. But you never know. Some of those 18th century dudes were into time travel, or so I’m told. In fact, there is evidence (suppressed by the Illuminati) that George Washington secured a 308 caliber Ruger Law Enforcement Police Sniper Rifle during a quick trip to a Kansas gun store in 2003, but thought he was buying a gun chambered in 5.56x45mm NATO and bought the wrong ammo. Anyway, there’s a good reason that Ryan Williams’ editorial on gun control is sophomoric: he’s a sophomore at Notre Dame (roughly translated “Our Broad”). One who wants to ban semi-automatic guns of any kind and asks . . .
Why can any ordinary 18-year-old walk into a pawnshop and purchase the exact same weapon that is being used by the Taliban to kill American soldiers in Afghanistan? Why do Americans feel the need to purchase a gun whose only outstanding quality is that it can kill more people in a shorter period of time than a conventional non-automatic firearm?
Williams answers his rhetorical question by ragging on the Second Amendment, portraying it as outdated. And then he recommends that Uncle Sam (or someone) should restrict American gun buyers to outdated weapons.
Another argument put forth by gun rights supporters is that firearms are necessary to protect one’s home and family. While this argument has its merits, does anyone really think they need more than an ordinary, non-automatic rifle or handgun to defend their home? Seriously, unless the IRA or Hezbollah make frequent visits to your neighborhood, it seems highly unlikely that you would ever need to break out your trusty assault rifle.
A non-automatic rifle would be a bolt-action long gun and a non-automatic handgun would be a revolver, no? So who disarms first? Me or the criminals with semi-automatic weapons? Can’t we go the other way and let private citizens own machine guns? I’d like one. At least one.
‘Cause I can think of a time I might need a semi or fully-automatic weapon other than an IRA/Hezbollah invasion: if the young inherit the Earth. There’s no telling what they’d do to my peace and security. I know: I used to be young, once.
I suppose it comes down to this: should we try to roll back the clock to a mythical time of reduced violence or suffer the slings and arrows—make that bullets of our country’s outrageous [good] fortune? I’m going with the slings and stuff. Williams?
So please, let’s restore a little common sense and sanity to government and get rid of these dangerous and deadly automatic and semi-automatic weapons. Let’s keep them out of our gun stores, off our streets and as far away as possible from our high schools and universities. America has seen more than its fair share of school shootings. It’s time to start taking some concrete steps to ensure that these horrifying tragedies never again take place, and denying would-be gunmen the weapons that only facilitate their rampages is as good a place to start as any. Only then can we begin to realize President Franklin D. Roosevelt’s dream of an America that guaranteed “freedom from fear” to all its citizens.
Did Franky guarantee freedom from fear to all Americans? I thought he said “the only thing we have to fear is head lice.” No wait; that was my daughter’s first grade teacher. The oxymoronic progressive prez said we shouldn’t fear fear. Here here! I’m all about fear relief. But I’m not happy relying on the government to do it for me. I depend on a semi-automatic gun (or two), instead.
If you want as good a place as any to remove the danger of a campus spree killer (which the UT gunman was not), I’m thinking that every student should have a revolver on their person. That way, if someone says “Are you happy to see me or is that a Smith & Wesson 642 in your pocket?” they could answer “yes.” That’s it Mr. Williams, just say yes to guns! It’s the title of my next book, in fact.