Counterpoint

Pry it from my cold dead hands By Dan King

I am a Bill of Rights advocate and devotee.

The protection of the civil liberties in these amendments is what makes America great.

Freedom of speech, religion, press; my rights in the justice system; and immunity from cruel and unusual punishment -- They are absolutely necessary in keeping a healthy and civilized society.

But they are not without boundaries; one cannot exercise these liberties to the point of infringing upon others or putting into jeopardy the health, safety, and welfare of the general public.

For instance, one is free to practice any religion, but if a religion requires its adherents to abolish all other religions, practicing that religion would not be allowed.

Though forearms fo not infringe upon others civil liberties, they do endanger safety and welfare of the American public.

It is therefore sensible to place restrictions on an implement whose sole purpose is to inflict injury or death.

Gun related incidents are second only to automobile accidents in injury related deaths wihhc begs some second amendment zealots to make a comparison to banning automobiles.

The analogy is false. First, it is extremely rare to find an incident where an automobile accident happened on purpose.

Second, guns are not essential to the country's ability to function nor are they necessary in daily life.

Civil liberties exist to ensure that an individual can lead a life without suferfluous givernment interference, but how can one do so if deprived of life itself?

In 2000, 10,801 people died from firearms assualt (homicide) in the United States having their inalienable rights "To Life, Liberty, and pursuit of Happiness" violated.

Additionallu over 5,000 die from firearm accidents. This makes a rather convincing argument for limiting guns. Dangerous items like explosives and drugs have been made illegal, why not guns?

It's an atavism to the revolutionary days, a ridiculous tradition that's hurting Americans more than helping.

Some argue against the effectiveness of gun control citing cities whose strict laws practically ban firearms and their lack of improvement in reducing violent crime with guns.

But they can hardly be used as case studies lacking the strict enforcement that can take place at a national level.

Others might mention that criminals would still be able to get guns, but then that wouldn't really be gun control, now would it?

Those who harbor a fear of their national giovernment, seeing volatile situations elsewhere in the world, forget that since its inception America has taken ots place among the oldest and most stable representative democracies in the world, never once having a threat in the change of government.

The few threats on American soil have been fought off by the armed forces successfully enough, never relying on its armed body of citizens.

Even if the government turned against its citizenry, the Constitution allows us to join state militias, take up arms, and fight.