As I watched the Boston fiasco unfold, I was appalled at the very thought that people would submit to a government shutdown of an entire city.
That, and the fact that only 1 in 10 within that state have a firearm of any type, most likely none of them an “assault” style weapon. I hate the term assault rifle, because those are not available to the common citizen. Not without an exorbitant and prohibitive tax just to own one, but I digress.
This is a major failure in and of itself. Freedom is too precious just to hand it over to government just because they said so.
With all that happened, any asshole politician that says I don’t need a high cap magazine, or “assault” rifle to defend myself, well, just look at the Boston PD, FBI and a multitude of other agencies and the number of rounds that they used in this whole deal and tell me that again. They’re supposedly trained in their use too. Pathetic.
The Boston Bombings and the 2nd Amendment
By Jonathan F. Keiler
As terrible as the Boston marathon bombing was, it was the subsequent searches and shootouts that might have the greater long-term implications for supporters of the 2nd Amendment, as well as those uncomfortable with the increasing militarization of local and national police forces. Four related issues bear consideration in the wake of these events.
Boston’s Disarming — Since 1998 Massachusetts has suffered under one of the nation’s most restrictive and extensive gun control regimes. Predictably, this did not increase public safety but rather produced soaring crime rates. However, it did result in the third lowest rate of gun ownership in the country 12.6% behind only New Jersey and Hawaii.
So when Dzhokhar Tsarnaev fled into Watertown, he had little to fear from the local residents, barely one in ten of whom likely had firearms available, and presumably none an “assault weapon” or high-capacity pistol. How those residents felt as an armed and murderous terrorist roamed the streets while they were effectively disarmed, unable to protect themselves and their loved ones, is still a matter of speculation. A spike in Massachusetts gun purchases restrictions and all is a good bet.
Maryland my own state with a gun ownership rate only modestly higher than Massachusetts 21% — ranked 42 nationally will likely be in a similar situation in a few years, thanks to draconian new restrictions on firearms here. One hopes that at least some Maryland politicians are questioning their recent votes banning assault weapons and high capacity magazines.
In any event, in the wake of the events in Boston, it should be harder for gun-control advocates to parrot their standard line that firearms for home defense are a danger to individuals and to the community at large, rather than useful tools.
