![]() Friday, April 4, 1997 |
Collegian Columnist
Assault rifles outlawed -- but government still has themDo you think that it is possible for there to be a revolution in America today? |
![]() 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. |
Copyright © 1997, Collegian Inc., Last Updated -
4/3/97 7:19:43 PM