The Second Amendment is not about Hunting

Like everyone around the country, I watch in horror whenever some nutjob goes on a public killing spree.  The worst one yet was the nutjob who killed the elementary school kids.  To not be affected, I'd have to yield up my soul.

However, I also understand that the tools used to commit the crimes were not at fault.  A gun is useless without someone to pull the trigger.  A Winchester lever-action rifle, an AR15, a Glock handgun...none of these can spontaneously arise and kill anybody.  It takes the direct will of a human being to use any tool to take a life.  In a crowd, a skilled knife wielder can probably injure as many people as a man with a gun, perhaps more.  Backyard swimming pools account for far more deaths than firearms.  And let's not even talk about tobacco use...

The point is, a firearm is merely a tool.  Like any tool, it's subject to its user's will, for good or evil.

The politicians are all scrambling on this one.  For years, the anti-gun crowd has been screaming against the rollback of gun control.  Folks honestly seemed to realize that guns were not the problem, but that scumbags and nutjobs were.  Now, many of these politicians who got elected by claiming to be "gun friendly," are backpedaling and embracing some truly scary ideas.

Incorrect assumption #1: We don't need "those guns" because they belong on the battlefield and have nothing to do with hunting.  First, the entire idea is untrue.  The AR15 (the civilian, not military, rifle) makes a wonderful rifle to hunt varmints with.  They're great coyote guns.  Second, even if one were to ignore the last two Supreme Court rulings, the conventional interpretation of the Miller case is that the shotgun was not a battlefield weapon, so the NFA was upheld.  Beyond the obvious that shotguns are wonderful and useful battlefield weapons, that would mean that military-style rifles would be protected.  Third, if the excuse to ban comes from the weapon being military or military-like, then shotguns and handguns are on the list for extermination as well.  Pump action and semi-auto shotguns are used by the military all the time.  Handguns are used by the military all the time.  Simple math, folks.

Incorrect assumption #2: Nobody needs x-number of rounds in a magazine.  First, most of these public shootings don't seem to involve a large number of shots fired.  A few have, but not many of them.  At least in a short time period.  Shots were fired almost leisurely by many of these nutjob assailants.  One magazine or three magazines, it's irrelevant.  Second, if I do not need more than ten rounds in my Glock, why should the Policeman get more?  What's good for the goose is good for the gander.  My life is not worth less than a Policeman's life.  Why should I get short-changed?

Incorrect assumption #3: Introducing more guns will not safeguard x.  Well, once again, incorrect.  If guns didn't save lives, why allow police to use them?  Or the military?  Obviously firearms can and do save lives and neutralize danger.  Otherwise, our government agents would not utilize them.

The Second Amendment isn't about hunting folks.  It isn't about self-defense.  These are merely byproducts of its existence.

Focusing on the rights of the lawful citizenry and stripping them away will do nothing to stop acts of great evil.  People are beaten to death all the time with nothing more than fist and feet.  More importantly, without an equalizer, such as a firearm, the larger and stronger among us carry considerable advantage over the smaller and weaker among us.  With a gun, a 90 year old grandmother can stop a healthy, strong, and violent teenage male.  Without same gun, he has the complete advantage.

Incorrect assumption #4: The Second Amendment only really applies to muskets, since they didn't have "assault rifles" back then.  First, assault rifles are actual military rifles, full-auto rifles.  Hitler coined the phrase.  Civilian semi-automatic rifles that happen to cosmetically look like military rifles are NOT "assault rifles."  Second, claiming that technology is not covered by the Bill of Rights because it did not exist is counter to all Constitutional Law and obviously runs counter to the intent of the Founders (try reading some of their letters, they are enlightening). 

But to truly answer this flawed assumption of Senator Feinstein, let me ask you this: Since the computer did not exist in the 18th century, when the Constitution was written, is it not covered by the First Amendment?  Or am I limited to use of the printing press and pen and paper for my freedom of speech and freedom of the Press?