Consider: If a gun’s ‘sole purpose’ is to kill, are they really being used improperly?


The biggest problem we have whenever a discussion concerning something like gun control is rekindled is the language used to skirt around the facts of the situation.

Soapbox phrases such as “guns don’t kill people, people kill people” or “if they didn’t have a gun, they’d used something else” are fine and good, but they fail to deter the cold facts of the purpose of a gun.

A knife can be used for many things. Fire can be used both destroyer and life bringer.

But a gun’s sole purpose is to kill. That’s what they are made for.

Dating back all the way to China’s discovery of gunpowder, it’s purpose has been to cause as much damage on human life as possible.

When I hear “a gun being used improperly,” I wonder if we’re actually all using the same language we’ve agreed on.

I’m not for taking away guns. I like guns. I have guns.

But what we need to remember is that the Second Amendment was put into effect based on what the firearm of the day was – a musket.

It was an inaccurate, non-spiraled ball of metal that could be fired and reloaded at a super-fast three rounds per minute. That can’t be said about today’s weaponry.

An AR-15 semi-automatic assault rifle is far too destructive of a weapon to be allowed in the hands of non-military personnel.

No civilian should have a need for a gun that can fire hundreds of ballistic ordinance rounds.

Yes, the Second Amendment is important.

But there is something wrong if under legal document it is OK for a civilian to own a flamethrower, an AA-12 or a Nuclear missle.