The gun debate...

  I have found out that the anti-gun movement believes that anyone who wants to own a gun is "uneducated" and hold "antiquated" views... that we (gun owners) are ticking time bombs, just waiting for the right moment to go off.
   While that may be true for a small percentage, the vast majority of legal gun owners are well educated and believe in fighting AGAINST the bad guys... for many of us, that is why we CHOSE to own guns.  We (gun owners) commit less crimes than non-gun owners... there is a direct connection between issuing concealed weapon permits and reduced crime... less than half of gun-related fatalities are murders.

  Anti-gunners don't want to believe that we (gun owners) have the best interest of our society in mind. Anti-gunners tell us that only the military need "assault" weapons and that we have armed police to protect us.  Well, tell that to those people (specifically the Asians) who lived/worked in Los Angeles during the Rodney King riots... the police ABANDONED them, left them to fight for themselves.  If it wasn't for armed citizens, there would have been more deaths and looting.

   I guess we should remind people about "the shot heard around the world" that occurred on April 19, 1775, and why our forefathers added the Second Amendment in the first place.

  The gun debate continues in the media... well, I guess it's the Second Amendment debate really.

 Much is said about what our forefathers implied when they wrote the US Constitution, specifically the Second Amendment.

    Many people claim that it refers only to hunting... many also claim that it was written specifically about muzzle loader rifles, and that "assault" weapons are not protected by the amendment.  I have to ask: Using that logic, does the First Amendment only refer to quill pens and town squires, leaving television and radio unprotected by that amendment?  Chew on that for a minute...