There is a crucial difference between the weapons we use for sport and the ones that are used in war. However, today, we are stuck in a controversial conversation with gun owners about making laws to keep war type weapons out of the hands of persons who live amongst common civilians. Because for a lot of gun owners, to take away any type of gun is a constitutional disregard for the second amendment.
The Argument That Validates an Opinion
In my opinion, it is the fear of strict gun laws that brings up the fight for the right to keep lesser laws to obtain a gun. The truth is, no one who fights for gun reform wants to take away the right of the hunter or any type of gun owner who uses it merely for a sport, to keep their weapons that contribute to that sport. Therefore, a conversation is good, but it must come with open ears and eyes on both sides of that conversation.
Although there have been detrimental cases that have been seen by the whole world within the last seven years that show a rise in the death toll of innocent humans by mentally unstable individuals and their easy access to semi-automatic weapons; it still has not moved the NRA and the groups’ followers to recognize the complete dangers that a semi-automatic weapon such as an ar-15 can do and continues to do to societies where innocent people and their families live. The reality that gun owners fail to realize is that gun violence is one of the biggest reasons we now live in a deteriorating world. It is too simple for semi-automatic weapons to be purchased by mentally ill individuals.
A Civilian’s Outlook About the Differences Between Weapons Used for War and Weapons Used for Sport
Therefore, with this article, I would like to differentiate sport weapons to weapons that do not represent any type of sport. And also make a case for better laws that would protect us all without taking away a sane person’s legal right to bear arms. The truth is, weapons of sport versus weapons of destruction should be easy enough to separate.
For instance, an avid gun owner would argue that any ar-15 rifles have been around for decades and that they are, indeed, used in hunting big game. Well, that would be half correct. Except, as the military has spruced up their semi-automatic weapons, such as the M16, gun manufacturers have continued to build and model the ar-15 after this military style weapon. Therefore, it has since become more of a weapon of war rather than a weapon of a sport-related event.
Granted, gun lovers like the power of this type of gun. However, if we have paid close attention without the ignorance of turning the other cheek, we know that lives are being taken more and more not by a single shot rifle, which is mainly used for the sport of the hunt, but with the ar-15’s that are built to carry more than a cock and shoot mechanism. A semi-automatic gun will shoot without pause in order to never miss. Where is the sport in that? Even AR-10 rifles fall in the same category.
Even a Born and Bred Southerner Can See the Difference Between Guns That Are Intended for Sport and Guns That Are Intended for Destruction
As a person who was born and raised in the south, I have seen a lot of sport rifles. When it comes to hunting or nailing a bullseye during target sports, most people who love these types of challenging activities will carry single shot rifles with a clear focused scope such as Rugers – not annihilation weapons. Muzzleloaders and bows are also weaponry for sport. Is the difference a little clearer now?
For the final argument to the gun law debate. I hope people who read this article will start to open up and obtain a better understanding as to why we need stricter gun reform laws. It is not to squash the second amendment, only to amend it in a way that relates to our modern-day circumstances.