To The Daly Sun,
I am always amazed by the specious arguments that so-called gun rights advocates use against those who are working for sensible gun laws. Some have claimed that those who do not have a knowledge of guns should not be involved in promoting gun control. Others refuse to see the not-so-fine line between sensible gun restrictions and the complete removal of guns from lawful owners. Others say that it is a slippery slope from, for example, eliminating military-style weapons from the general public to taking away all guns.
I am not and would not want to be a gun owner. I do not have an understanding of guns but I do understand the awful results of the use of military-style weapons that serve no purpose but to kill as many people as possible in the shortest amount of time. That is unless they are being used by the "well regulated militia" noted in the second amendment to fight for the security of a free state against those nasty British, who might invade to take back their colonies. And, contrary to the assertions of the NRA, there is a large gap between taking away all lawfully owned guns and enacting sensible measures such as background checks or keeping military-style weapons out of the hands of the average citizen.
If there is a slippery slope from sensible gun control to the total elimination of Second Amendment rights, I would argue that there is an equally slippery slope from allowing every citizen to own military-style weapons with no controls to permitting more and more dangerous weapons to inflict more harm on our society.