How 2013 Will Reshape Gun Control

Gun control lawsGun control has been the hot topic in the news recently, and scrolling through twitter feeds and Facebook posts there seems to be support for some sort of change to the gun policies in this country from many people. But there are still many who oppose additional gun control measures because of many reasons, including losing freedom and liberties, violations to the constitution, and historical support indicating that more gun control laws won’t keep guns out of the hands of criminals. Gun control policies have been attempted in the past but there seems to be additional support because of recent shootings that have been highly publicized. A few weeks ago, the President made a speech about how he intends to pass stricter gun control laws, urging Congress to pass stricter gun control laws.


Will it Affect the Criminals?

Controlling gun sales and gun ownership is supposed to deter criminals from owning rifles that the media portrays as “military style assault rifles” but past history indicates that it won’t have any noticeable effect on crime. New laws on the books only typically only impact law abiding citizens since criminals (by definition) don’t obey the law.

Personal Protection

Amidst many different opinions and ideas on the subject, one thing is for sure–each individual and family needs to take responsibility for their own safety. Concealed firearms are becoming more and more common in this country and these permits give citizens a way to protect themselves inside and outside of the home. Protecting home assets and personal security are other major factors to gun ownership. Some people rely on home security systems, dogs, firearms, proper lighting, fences, and other measures to deter criminals.

2nd Amendment

Many American’s are opposed to any sort of gun control law reform because it violates the Constitution. Changes to the Second Amendment will infringe on our rights as US citizens. Firearms are tools that save lives in the right hands, and take lives in the wrong hands. The laws that we have currently should be focused on keeping guns out of the wrong hands, not law abiding citizens. Trying to take away guns like standard modern sporting rifles (e.g. AR15′s and AK47′s) will not keep them out of the wrong hands. It also is going after uncommon weapons in crime and is more political than offering a real solution. In fact, we’ve already tried this “assault weapon” ban and studies show it had little to no impact on crime. Crime has been steadily decreasing since before the assault weapon ban and is steadily declining since it expired in 2004. Each citizen must make choices to defend themselves in the best way possibly, and should contact their representatives to make their voice heard.


Author Bio

This article was written on behalf of by Bennett, and for those seeking more information on home security systems and home safety, contact one of their professionals.


  1. Most American’s that are opposed to any sort of gun control law reform argue that changes to the second amendment will infringe on their rights as US citizens. Those who disagree, and call that way of thinking “archaic” argue that since the US Constitution was written in the late 1700’s when firearms were much less advanced than they are in today’s day and age, laws need to be updated accordingly.

    I disagree with the aforementioned disagree-ers, and call their way of thinking “historically ignorant.”

    When the Constitution was written, there were 3 main categories of weapons used in land warfare; melee weapons (sabers, knives, etc.), firearms, and cannon. Firearms were the dominant category, and thus the least dispensable in the eyes of military men. In fact, firearms constituted the majority of the ability of a land army to conduct warfare.

    This is what the Founders were granting to the citizenry; the majority of the ability to wage war on land.

    Today, the right to bear arms has diminished vis-a-vis the ability to fight a land war, not advanced, as is made obvious by the advent of high explosives, mines, bombs, missiles, WMDs, air power, and the proliferation of vehicles both armored and otherwise.

    One thing we can all agree on, is that we a duty to the future to our country, and our children, to find the most amicable way to come to an agreement, so that tragic and needless deaths of our loved ones and neighbors comes to a stop.

    Sorry, we can’t all agree on that. No more than we can agree that I should “find the most amicable way to come to an agreement” with a burglar in my home. The right thing to do is to disappoint him, and to please me.

  2. Gun control policies have been attempted in the past but this one feels different as recent shootings have only fueled the gun control agenda.

    Right; the previous mass shootings didn’t fit his agenda; they came before his re-election.

    The whole mass shooting thing is a storm in a liberal media tea cup. Bee stings and lightning strikes both kill more people than semi-automatic rifles with pistol grips and detatchable magazines do. Fists and blunt instruments kill many more people every year than all types of rifles combined.

    This is about the fact that liberals hate the 2nd Amendment, as exercised by the law-abiding among us, which is why they’re going after “assault rifles,” which are overwhelmingly the domain of law-abiding red state males, and not pistols, which are far more the domain of criminal urban males.

  3. steps to ensure accidental discharge or theft should always be taken seriously. Part of the President’s speech included research into improving safety locks and better sharing of stolen firearms across agencies.

    I’m opposed to 2nd Amendment violations (“shall not be infringed” being the key phrase here) per se, but beyond that, I’m doubly opposed to 2nd Amendment violations (AKA, “gun control”) that mandate engineering constraints on arms available to the citizenry, but not on arms provided to the military. If a safety design is going to be mandated on civilian weapons, it should be mandated on military weapons as well. If it doesn’t provide an undue burden on efficacy, or an undue economic burden on manufacturers, then the military won’t object. If they object, we know they’re unreasonable infringements (above and beyond the normal level of unreasonableness inherent in 2nd Amendment infringements) and should be opposed, forbidden, struck down, or reversed.

    P.S., the plural possessive here is Americans’, not “American’s.”

  4. Liberals don’t like all that firepower in the hands of law-abiding red state Americans. That’s what this is really about. All that firepower is the lowest on the list of actual statistical causes of death among firearms generally; and don’t even get me started about other causes of death like drunk driving, which liberals don’t make nearly the same stink about, even though they claim vastly more American lives every year. Including the lives of children.

    And if libs really cared that much about the children, they wouldn’t react so negatively to the idea of protecting them with armed guards in the schools.

  5. Leslie Johnson says:

    “Assault” weapon issue resolved: 35 terror training camps now OPERATING INSIDE the U.S. & our government is DOING NOTHING to stop the expansion of the ‘Soldiers of Allah’ network!!! And by the way they use AK-47 rifles!

  6. Criminals will continue to break the law – especially gun control laws.

    Law abiding citizens will continue to be disarmed.

    Take advantage of the gun laws we have while you can – take your ccw class and start carrying. It just might save your life.

  7. Load up as much as you can with guns it sounds like! Homeland is buying guns and especially ammo up like they’re going out of style, so pretty soon, even if we still have loose enough gun laws to purchase them – there won’t be any left!

Speak Your Mind