Choose strongest weapons, not weakest
January 16, 2013 12:00 AM | 884 views | 5 5 comments | 5 5 recommendations | email to a friend | print

If I understand correctly the intent behind the Second Amendment was to ensure that the citizens would be able to defend themselves or our country against any invasion or attack from any aggressors or from an oppressive government. If that be the case, it would seem to me that you should arm yourself with the most effective type of firearm available, such as the much criticized assault rifles or weapons with large capacity magazines, not B.B. guns. I doubt any attackers would limit themselves to weak weapons and would think twice before starting any type of fight.

Jim Arnold

Senior Chief Petty Officer (Ret.)

U.S. Navy

Powder Springs
Comments-icon Post a Comment
January 17, 2013
Yeah, arm yourself. That way you'll feel better when the Hellfire missile hits your house.

Ole Man
January 16, 2013
I agree something should be done to make sure our children are protected while in school. However, law abiding citizens follow the law. The problem there are no laws that will take guns out of the hands of criminals. They currently do not follow our laws.
Links Us
January 16, 2013
If aggression against your home comes from another country, your AR weapon will not be sufficient against missles, jets and nuclear bombs. If aggression against your home comes from our government, your AR weapon will not be sufficient against tanks, drones, jets, missles and troops with rocket launchers. If aggression comes from a burglar against your home, according to our laws you have to make sure they are inside your home and they have a weapon. In that case

you can use your pistol, which should be sufficient. When our Constitution was written, our founding fathers did not have all these weapons and thus comparing word for word then and now is tricky and up to interpretation.

Besides limiting the type of guns one can own, we should be looking at what can make our schools and everyone safer like- school entryways with steel doors & very little glass that restricts intruders from entering, better screening to obtain a weapons permit, and the BIG ONE, which is help with treatment for our mentally ill citizens of ALL ages. We place a big priority on treating cancer and heart problems, but NOT on the mentally ill. Rosalyn Carter was right in 1977.
January 17, 2013
I agree that mental health issues need to be looked at, but the 800-lb gorilla that I see is the 24-7 nonstop media blitz that occurs every time some lunatic cuts loose. That's why they continue to do it, and something needs to be done to prevent ANY information about the perpetrator being released. Also, your points about the ARs effectiveness against planes,tanks, etc. are technically correct but not relevant. If they were, we would never have needed to send troops into Afghanistan or Iraq.

Too funny
January 16, 2013
The intent of the Second Amendment, as expressed therein, was the security of a free state, not protection from our own government. Our standing military now provides that security, not to mention that Article 3, Section 3 says that war against our own government is Treason.

What we have now is a society awash with guns whether we like it or not.
*We welcome your comments on the stories and issues of the day and seek to provide a forum for the community to voice opinions. All comments are subject to moderator approval before being made visible on the website but are not edited. The use of profanity, obscene and vulgar language, hate speech, and racial slurs is strictly prohibited. Advertisements, promotions, and spam will also be rejected. Please read our terms of service for full guides