digital collegian
Friday, April 4, 1997
Collegian Columnist

Assault rifles outlawed -- but government still has them

Do you think that it is possible for there to be a revolution in America today?

name of columnist mug shot

Tim La Rose (tll121@psu.edu) is a senior majoring in English and a Collegian columnist.

Most people would say, "No. What kind of a gun-toting NRA Nazi idiot guerrilla militia fascist conspiracy freak commie would ask a stupid question like that anyway? We don't need revolutions in America; everything is fine."

Well, I have to say that I am insulted. I just asked a simple question; you don't have to get testy.

And besides, you are wrong.

I am not a conspiracy nut and I don't belong to a militia. I am just a regular citizen who is becoming a little scared. Aren't you? If you aren't, then read on. Let me know if I am crazy.

There is a big gun debate. The government, with the help of some of its people have managed to take away assault rifles, completely. Their argument: people are shot with assault rifles everyday, and besides, who needs an AK or an UZI for taking down a deer?

About the assault rifles killing people everyday, it just isn't true. Maybe once in a while.

But they are right about the second part. No one in their right mind is gonna use an assault rifle on their weekend flying squirrel hunt.

That is not why people want guns. People want to protect themselves. Not from a rabid deer or a vengeful goose, but from other people with guns.

Great so, now we should take guns away from all citizens. But hey remember, regular Joes aren't the only ones with guns. The army has them too.

Here is a list of just some of the gun-toting Americans who will still have guns if we take them away from ordinary people: the CIA, the FBI, local police departments (I don't know where you are from, but my hometown is quickly becoming a police state), ATF, the DEA, the Secret Service and believe me there are organizations and groups within the government that you haven't even heard of that will still be armed if we take away guns.

"So what? I have more of a chance of being shot by my neighbor because my stereo is up too loud than by an ATF agent yelling at me to put away my whiskey and snuff out my cigarette."

Maybe this is true. Maybe Bill Clinton won't make laws that would upset you enough to grab a gun and storm the White House lawn. But maybe he will. All of you, who believe that the people should have all of their guns taken away from them and the government should keep them, just consider one question. Do you trust the government?

I don't mean just now, 1997. I mean forever. With all of the scandals and power, all of the agencies and crooks, and with all of the unanswered questions and shady back room dealings do you believe that you will never be the victim of an unjust act?

Do you believe that Bill Clinton is not going to tax us so much that we will eventually become a communist state? (We only need to be taxed about 10% more to fall into certain socialist categories.)

It has happened although history, the world's and our own. Why is it so impossible for it to happen again?

Thomas Jefferson suggested that the Liberty Tree should be watered with the blood of its patriots, often.

Let me just stress to you one thing. I am not a gun lover or some conspiracy nut who mows his lawns at night to avoid black helicopters. I am not an avid watcher of the X-files.

And I do not like guns. I absolutely hate them. If we could rid the entire planet of guns that would be great.

But since our government, other governments and people all over the planet have them, I am becoming a little bit scared. It just doesn't make sense to eliminate them here. So, am I crazy?

What do you think?




On a side note: It is good to see that there was so much response to my last column, "Diversity and language requirements are just too much." I would like to say a few more things about the issue of General Education Requirements.

There was a letter and a column April 2, both of which stated that I am against diversity classes altogether. This is not true.

In my column I stated that diversity was important; I just believe that we should be required to take less credits of diversity and more in our majors. I never suggested elimination of the requirements.

I would hate to see this debate become a question of complete elimination. So next time read my column before you criticize it and I won't have to take time out of another column to correct you. Thanks.

You can read previous columns and letters at The Digital Collegian Web site (www.collegian.psu.edu).


go to home page Copyright © 1997, Collegian Inc., Last Updated - 4/3/97 7:19:43 PM