It’s hard to imagine anything as sad as losing a family member to something like gun violence.

This is so true a thing, that the hearts of those who weren’t even affected by such an occurrence, can be broken by the resulting sadness; as others speak about the horror they experienced in the person being killed, having died.

It tugs at one’s heart strings, and to be sure, there’s not a thing wrong with that being the case.

One feels grief for the family and friends who will never see that child, or for that matter adult ever again.

As a result, there are many who seek to use this reality, to advance various things they believe will be remedial to given issues.

Obviously, this is true for more problems than gun violence. People do the same sort of thing with abortion, for example.

It can be an effective way to get people to consider making changes they wouldn’t normally be prone to support.

Some of the ideas set forth, are thoughtful, cogent, reasonable presentations.

Others have some of the factors above, but not all.

It’s rare that someone will put forth a presentation, about which they haven’t at least, spent a good deal of time in consideration. Even so, folks are prone to miss important facts where the things they’re advancing are concerned.

Take, for example, the constantly-raging debate over what’s termed, “gun control.”

On the one hand, I’d like to be able to support those advancing that agenda (whether they see it as one or not, that’s what it happens to be). On the other though, I recognize some things, people have either failed entirely to consider, or are unwilling to accept or admit.

It’s those realizations that make it virtually impossible for me to be in favor of the things being put forward.

To begin with, it’s commonly true that in order to get a firearm, one must go through a pretty extensive, background check before being allowed to complete such a purchase. Frankly, this is likely unconstitutional, based on its tendency to infringe folks’ 2^nd Amendment rights

You can argue for—as far as I’m aware—just one “loophole” in that process. That would be the ability for a private citizen (not a licensed dealer) to sell or give a weapon to someone without such checks. As I say, the reality is, the checks required are almost certainly in contravention to the right to bear arms stated in one of our most fundamental law-giving documents.

Because most law-abiding citizens are willing to largely accept the mandate for review currently in place, there’s a tendency to ignore, or allow for the potential lawlessness of the requirement and account that additional time will be required to come into ownership of a new hunting rifle, or handgun for protection.

Then there are considerations like, bans on “assault weapons,” bump stocks, and large capacity magazines.

These too, are likely against that article of change to the Constitution. That said, again, the majority of folks are willing to allow them to come into being, so long as they don’t make it illegal to have or carry that which they already possess.

I’ve presented multiple times, a video by a law enforcement officer (The Truth About Semi-Auto Firearms), in which, among other things, the individual doing the video, strips down a standard hunting rifle, and replaces the removed components, with ones that make it look much more menacing and threatening.

The action (the part that makes the rifle do what it does), changes not one iota, yet the weapon seems to take on an entirely different character based on the cosmetic changes applied.

It’s still not “fully automatic.” In fact, for all intents and purposes, in terms of the functional parts of the gun in question, it’s the same thing before and after the change in looks.

Let’s also be clear on this, a person with sufficient experience in doing so, could manufacture at home, just about any part to change the look and feel of the rifle in question.

I’m not saying things should be legal if that’s the case, merely pointing out that enforcing ordinances surrounding such things would be difficult at best, that considered.

Far more important, is the fact that the functionality isn’t changed, by the change in form.

The funny part? As already stated, the 2^nd Amendment employs no restriction on any kind of arm. It says ownership and carrying of arms shall not be infringed without placing any qualification on the type.

You can argue that armament has changed between the time of the writing of that verbiage and today. I would assert, that bombs and various kinds of armor, were then available, yet the person penning the text, and those assenting to it, saw no reason to limit what was to be protected.

And again, most people wouldn’t even consider owning live grenades, or machine (automatic) guns. If they did so, the chances are, they would store them away in vaults, and keep them for show, not common usage.

I should point out another interesting reality. Even in the military, where automatic weapons can be found as one of the main types of rifle in use, the general expectation, is that they’ll be used in semi-auto mode unless they’re being used to lay down suppressive fire.

This is because fully automatic mode is not particularly accurate or easy to control.

It’s also important to understand that in many circumstances, ammunition is not overly abundant. As such, it makes little to no sense to waste it, which fully automatic mode is wont to do.

All of this actually serves more as a side item, than as the main course of what’s being considered.

When it comes right down to it, most crimes committed with firearms, are perpetrated with illegal ones. Being plain, legal owners, having done all that was required to posses and bear a given rifle or pistol, are not prone to use them in illegal ways.

What all of this means is—laws being for the lawless—placing more restrictions on law-abiding citizens is highly unlikely to cause a reduction in crime—that includes the murder of innocents. In fact, you should be somewhat surprised if doing things like creating gun-free zones, doesn’t increase the rate of infraction in those places. Like it or not, the old idea is generally true, “Fences make for polite neighbors.” The same applies to the right to bear arms, regardless the reason for the protection of that right.

Thanks for reading, and may your time be good.