Issue Position: Gun Control/Right to Bear Arms

Issue Position

Many people who argue in favor of stringent gun control legislation typically do so with sincere intentions. However, their arguments, when taken to their logical conclusions, prove to be naïve or misguided.

Restricting the access of law-abiding citizens to own guns would not solve the problem of gun violence. While strict rules against ownership would only be followed by those responsible members of society who obey the law, the criminals among us would violate guns laws in the same way they violate all the others.

I refuse to tell someone that they do not have the right to protect themselves in their own home, and I will not take away their ability to do so.

The Constitutional guarantee, via the second amendment in the Bill of Rights, has been argued as to its true intent. At one end you have individuals who say that the government has no right to restrict their access or ownership of any weapon. At the other end are people that the amendment's reference to "well regulated militia" implies that private ownership of weapons isn't absolute.
Restricting the access of law-abiding citizens to own guns would not solve the problem of gun violence. While strict rules against ownership would only be followed by those responsible members of society who obey the law, the criminals among us would violate guns laws in the same way they violate all the others. I appreciate the sincerity and motivation of those who propose tougher regulations, but I refuse to believe that the same criminals who would commit robbery, assault, rape or murder would choose to follow the one law that would make their other crimes more difficult to commit.

The Founding Fathers were correct to protect our right to bear arms. Either for sport or protection, responsible members in our community exercise responsible gun ownership and don't need laws targeted against criminals to impede their ability to defend their homes and families. In doing a police "ride-along" several years ago, it dawned on me that we were continually responding to events that had already transpired; by the time the 911 call was routed to dispatch, and from there to the police net, and for the nearest officer to arrive at the scene, the crime was over. Good policing does preempt some crimes, but often our officers arrive afterwards.
I refuse to tell someone that they do not have the right to protect themselves in their own home, and I will not take away their ability to do so.

Q: What about people who stockpile weapons?

A: The great, great majority of responsible gun owners possess one or two handguns or rifles. If some of those same law-abiding citizens chose to have more, I just remind myself that one person can only use one gun. Again, logic dictates that if we passed a law limiting ownership, I'm not at all confident that a criminal would comply..

Q: Do you think people should be allowed to carry weapons anywhere?

A: Appropriate legislation strives to strike the proper balance between liberty and security. Given that the purpose of carrying a weapon in public is for protection, then any venue that can limit everyone, including criminals, from carrying a gun should retain the authority to do so.

Source