I am a father of three: one toddler and two elementary school kids. I am a vet who served in both Iraq and Afghanistan, but now I work as a civilian for the government. I own a post-ban Bushmaster AR-15, and here's why.
Prior to the drafting of the Constitution and Bill of Rights, the underlying principles of gun ownership were the following:
-to help fight off a foreign invasion
-to help quash an insurgency or rebellion
-to assist with law enforcement when called upon
-to resist a tyrannical government
-to protect one's self, family and property
-to hunt
Believe it or not, this was not a controversy, as everyone understood and accepted these as fundamental principles.
Of those purposes, over half are military/police in nature. So the framers of the constitution understood that civilians need to be capable of augmenting the military or, if necessary, replace the government. They knew that the nation came first, then the government, which was established for the people by the Constitution. If the government ever usurped the Constitution, the people would need the means to replace it.
People argue "But back then, the weapons were muskets and flint-lock rifles that took several minutes to reload, and they missed half the time. They could never have envisioned the modern assault rifle." That is irrelevant, because back then, muskets and flint-lock rifles is what the soldiers used as well. Those WERE "military grade" weapons. So the Founding Fathers did intend for civilians to carry the same weapons as soldiers; that is, "military grade weapons," whatever they were.
Next, they say "But how could civilians hope to overthrow a tyrannical government that has tanks and fighter jets?" Consider Libya, Egypt, the Soviet Union.
Any time a regime loses so much legitimacy that its populace seeks to replace it by force, there are always members of the military, at every echelon, who defect to the resistance. Our military actually has a legal out for this built into the oath of service, which obliges them to "support and defend the Constitution," not the government. So, if Americans ever need to replace a tyrannical, illegitimate government through force, they would have much of the military to help.
Now, I would be willing to abandon this defense if there were any data suggesting that banning weapons like the AR-15 would make my kids safer at school. But three independent, non-partisan studies showed that the previous gun ban had no measurable effects on crime. Additionally, according to FBI crime stats, cities that have less stringent gun laws (resulting in higher percentages of legal firearm ownership) have less crime than areas with strict gun laws.
It seems counter-intuitive, but the truth is that the more law-abiding citizens own guns (including hand-guns and assault rifles), the less crime there is. My owning an assault weapon makes America a better place.
Prior to the drafting of the Constitution and Bill of Rights, the underlying principles of gun ownership were the following:
-to help fight off a foreign invasion
-to help quash an insurgency or rebellion
-to assist with law enforcement when called upon
-to resist a tyrannical government
-to protect one's self, family and property
-to hunt
Believe it or not, this was not a controversy, as everyone understood and accepted these as fundamental principles.
Of those purposes, over half are military/police in nature. So the framers of the constitution understood that civilians need to be capable of augmenting the military or, if necessary, replace the government. They knew that the nation came first, then the government, which was established for the people by the Constitution. If the government ever usurped the Constitution, the people would need the means to replace it.
People argue "But back then, the weapons were muskets and flint-lock rifles that took several minutes to reload, and they missed half the time. They could never have envisioned the modern assault rifle." That is irrelevant, because back then, muskets and flint-lock rifles is what the soldiers used as well. Those WERE "military grade" weapons. So the Founding Fathers did intend for civilians to carry the same weapons as soldiers; that is, "military grade weapons," whatever they were.
Next, they say "But how could civilians hope to overthrow a tyrannical government that has tanks and fighter jets?" Consider Libya, Egypt, the Soviet Union.
Any time a regime loses so much legitimacy that its populace seeks to replace it by force, there are always members of the military, at every echelon, who defect to the resistance. Our military actually has a legal out for this built into the oath of service, which obliges them to "support and defend the Constitution," not the government. So, if Americans ever need to replace a tyrannical, illegitimate government through force, they would have much of the military to help.
Now, I would be willing to abandon this defense if there were any data suggesting that banning weapons like the AR-15 would make my kids safer at school. But three independent, non-partisan studies showed that the previous gun ban had no measurable effects on crime. Additionally, according to FBI crime stats, cities that have less stringent gun laws (resulting in higher percentages of legal firearm ownership) have less crime than areas with strict gun laws.
It seems counter-intuitive, but the truth is that the more law-abiding citizens own guns (including hand-guns and assault rifles), the less crime there is. My owning an assault weapon makes America a better place.