“Originally intended to protect our civil rights in 1787, our right to bear arms in 1987 has backfired. Instead our rights have been taken away.”
This was the opening line to an article I wrote that was published in the Los Angeles Times. At the time I was responding to an incident that had been published in the Metro Section on June 22, 1987, back when the Times had a Metro Section. At the time car passengers on freeways in Los Angeles were being shot and killed. The case I was responding to occurred to a young man riding as a passenger with his son in the back seat. I wrote, “That young man no longer had any rights when he was fatally shot in the neck by a passing maniac. ” This was not a single event. Back in ’87, people were getting shot on the 10 freeway, and it was not believed to be gang related.
Fast forward to 2012 and the shooting of 20 beautiful little kids and six adults whose rights were also taken away. So now everyone wants to ban the sale of firearms. Rightfully so, but the guns used by the killer were legally purchased by his mother. So it goes beyond gun control. The guns should have been locked in a safe and the ammo? Who has tons of ammo sitting around his house? How did a 20 year old get the ammo?
The news media is now stating that the mother was from New Hampshire and was “comfortable” around fire arms. Great! But what in the world does that have to do with owning a semi-automatic rifle? If you want to kill a moose, it’s already an unfair scenario with a single shot rifle. Will someone tell me where a semi-automatic weapon comes in?
The federal government needs to absolutely ban semi-automatic assault rifles. But we must look beyond that. How do we get America to go a step further and to lock up its guns? How do we prevent the sales of ammunition to a mentally ill 20-year-old? How can any owner of firearms find it acceptable to allow the guns to be as easily accessible as a glass of milk?