For years, the anti-gun crowd has included in their argument the false concept that the 2nd Amendment was intended to protect gun rights for things like hunting. How often have we heard the typical straw-man argument that "no one needs an AR-15 to hunt"?
As we well know, most, if not all, of their arguments against legal gun ownership are ridiculous and not based in reality or facts in any way, but that doesn't stop them from rolling them out every time it's politically expedient to do so, usually while they're simultaneously invoking the name of the latest shooting victims they care nothing about.
What are some of their other arguments? There's the idea that taking guns away from legal gun-owners will somehow magically reduce crime and end mass shootings. They clearly miss the basics in this argument, as those who legally own guns account for a very, very low percentage of the gun crime in this country. Taking guns away from legal owners is akin to taking kitchen knives away from chefs because there has been a rise in stabbings, as we've seen in Great Britain in recent years.............The real reason for the 2nd Amendment
No comments:
Post a Comment