The requirements being proposed for the new gun laws appear on the surface to be a legitimate concern, and a reasonable person might think they are alright, except when you consider the Bill of Rights and how things are stated there.
We do have reasons why they are stated the way they are.
Now then, I'd like to propose a philosophical conundrum to you.
You see the current gun laws being proposed by congress might preclude the US president, Barack Obama, from owning a gun.
That's laughable because Obama is the Commander in Chief of the largest military, arsenal, and WMD stockpile in all of human history.
Okay so, let's talk shall we? Remember President Obama has hidden most of his personal records, for instance health records, college transcripts, arrest records, etc.
Some believe, and I am not saying I am one of them, that he hasn't even provided legitimate birth certificate records.
With such a hidden record, one could ask if he himself would be able to purchase an assault rifle.
Without his health records no one knows what sort of bi-polar or ADHD medicine he might be taking or had in the past been taking - if any, and I am not saying he is or has then he wouldn't be allowed to own a gun.
Indeed, the new proposed gun laws would also prevent criminals from owning assault weapons.
Obama has admitted in his memoirs that he had a terrible problem with drugs in high school, wouldn't that information be part of the back ground check determining if someone could own an assault rifle too? Now then, obviously most people believe President Obama to be an upstanding citizen, and he is the leader of the free-world, but if he can't pass his own proposed background checks to own a weapon, what does this say about the flaws in the current gun law proposal? The reason I bring this up is not against Obama himself, rather the philosophical irony of it all, as it really just makes me laugh.
Now then, I am quite certain if we went through all of the Congressmen's closet we'd find ample skeletons to disallow a good many of them the right to own various types of weapons, thus I find it bizarre that they feel they can tell us how they plan to modify our rights as citizens to help themselves to positive PR in the mainstream media.
They shouldn't be using dead kids to promote an anti-gun agenda or to take away or limit our rights.
If they are willing to do that, what else would they be willing to do? And as you answer that question, now you know why we need the right to bear arms.
Please consider all this and think on it.