"Ooh...Guns, Guns, Guns..."

"Come on, Sal!  The Tigers are playing...tonight! I never miss a game." 

Please tell me you're familiar with that quote!  No???  Well allow me to share.[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zu0LJtbWBTg]It's Clarence Boddicker, from the original Robocop...which is being remade might I add...yet I digress.So today, I posted a picture originally posted by HuffPost Chicago:

 Which they accompanied with the text:

This Colt AR-15 is just one of the semiautomatic weapons that would be illegal if the Illinois Assault Weapon Ban is passed.

Read more: http://huff.to/Rv6pBi

To which I added in my posting:

Who, in all honesty needs that weapon? I spent a year in Afghanistan, and 2 years living in rural Alaska. If you need that weapon to hunt anything, you suck, and need to find a new hobby. I can't swim, so I keep my black behind out of the pool. If you need an AR-15 to bag a duck, deer, or bear, you can't shoot!

Needless to say this started some spirited debate.

Now, allow me to start by saying that the National Rifle Association's (NRA) official stance on this issue is that they oppose semi-automatic weapons bans.*source:  NRA: We will oppose semi-automatic weapons ban  Now I encourage you to go to that link and watch the video, it's very interesting, and pretty well sets off this debate.  Now, it's also important to note that a weapon similar to the one above was used in the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting.

Now, I'm pretty sure that I support a ban on assault weapons in IL., and if not the entire state, most definitely in the Chicagoland area.  However, this issue is long, arduous, and emotional...and I don't know what is necessarily the right move to make.  But I think there is a few key issues (and this list certainly isn't exhaustive) that come to mind when thinking about whether anyone, living in an urban environment (please note the word urban), needs to have this kind of weapon, and how that relates to the Second Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.

• The Second Amendment of the Constitution states: 

As passed by the Congress:

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

As ratified by the States and authenticated by Thomas Jefferson, Secretary of State:

A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

source: Wikipedia: Second Amendment to the United States Constitution

Now it's very important to remember that a key part of the Constitution to be interpretation, and the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) has always interpreted this to mean that every law abiding citizen, with some exceptions, has the freedom to own a gun.  I personally think that interpretation is wrong. I feel that this amendment means those who choose to stand with the militia in times of defense may own a gun.

We don't really do the militia thing anymore...oh wait, I suppose we do.  It's called The National Guard! Yeah, I was in that for a while, got to play with guns, grenades, and the whole nine.  Anywho, we don't really have the days of mustering men in the town square to beat back the Red Coats.

Now, with this issue, particularly any kind of ban on guns, we have a fundamental issue:

• Gun bans only affect law abiding citizens!  

Now, it's hard to argue with this point.  Criminals don't care what you ban, or what regulations you put forth. This is true.  Now, this comes the time when you have to move away from the gray and start making some hard, dare i say coarse decisions.  So, you ban semi-automatic assault weapons.  What then becomes the penalty when you find someone with one?  How many years should that person server without chance of parole?  I think that's a fundamental question that needs to be faced.  Police are not controlling our streets as it is.  I do not however think that giving every John Q. Public on the street an AR-15 is going to help current crime problems.

I think it's important to keep in mind that:

The United States has the highest rate of gun related injuries (not deaths per capita) among developed countries, though it also has the highest rate of gun ownership and the highest rate of officers.source: Wikipedia: Gun violence

Other countries refer to our plight as "The American Disease."  No one, I mean no one, in this world does gun violence like we do.  When I was deployed to Afghanistan, a kid on the south side of Chicago had a higher probability of dying in a shooting than I did.  That's sad, sorry, and unacceptable.  I think we have something to learn from countries that don't worship the almighty gun.

• Guns have evolved and advanced beyond the framers of the Constitutions' wildest dreams! 

Now, as far as the Second Amendment goes...maybe the framers did intend for everyone to have a gun...but what kind of gun were they talking about?

 The sassy weapons these gentlemen are firing are called muskets.  At the time of the ratification of the Constitution, pistols and cannons were also in vogue.  Now, the musket had several key attributes:

Guns in 1791 WOULD

• ...be made by a gunsmith.
• ...have rudimentary rifling.
• ...be single-shot weapons.
• ...be loaded through the muzzle.
• ...fire by means of a flintlock.

Guns in 1791 WOULD NOT

• ...have interchangeable parts. (Popularized in 1798)
• ...be revolvers. (Invented in 1835)
• ...be breachloaded. (Popularized in 1810)
• ...use smokeless powder. (Invented in 1885)
• ...use a percussion cap, necessary for modern cartridged bullets. (Invented in 1842)
• ...load bullets from a clip. (Invented in 1890)source: Columbia Law School American Constitution Society

and I think of the utmost importance:

 IT TOOK ABOUT ONE AND HALF MINUTES TO LOAD FOR ONE SHOT!!!

and that's if you were good.  Now, that's a mite bit slower than our friend Erika here:

[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?NR=1&feature=fvwp&v=K8nda8yPNbI]

God forbid she has good aim and a "One shot, one kill" mentality

and here's another friend  who subscribes to the "spray and pray" mentality:

[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bnVdfBRynjo]

Now you must excuse me, but I'm going to use foul language....the NRA would have you believe

and to that I say kiss my black a**.  It's simply an irresponsible, and uneducated outlook to what is obviously a much more evolved piece of hardware.

Now, I firmly believe that in different parts of the United States, and in different living conditions, the ownership of a semi-automatic weapon may be justified.  I do not believe that justification exists in an urban area.  However, I do believe you should be able to own a musket.  I would have no problem with everyone running around with muskets.

Muskets are kind of cool.