Democratic Senator [score]Edward Markey[/score] from Massachusetts stated that gun control laws are necessary in order to “protect ordinary citizens.”
Even if gun control laws were well-intentioned, the result would always be the disarming of innocent, law-abiding citizens. Criminals by their nature will not abide by gun control laws. In fact, the more gun control laws there are, the easier their jobs get.
Trending: A Declaration by the Representatives of the United Colonies of North-America, Now Met in Congress at Philadelphia, Setting Forth the Causes and Necessity of Their Taking Up Arms – July 6, 1775
“Now is the time for the families of Aurora, Newtown, Charleston, and all the cities who are saying that it is time for this scourge to end,” Markey said at a press conference.
The press conference was billed by House and Senate Democrats as an event “to advance sensible, popular legislation to curb the epidemic of gun violence that kills 90 Americans every day.”
“We will win,” Markey said. “We will ultimately change the laws of our country to protect ordinary citizens who are part of this wave of violence.”
It doesn’t take a gun rights activist to see that no amount of gun control laws – whether in the form of universal background checks, semi-automatic rifle bans, “high-capacity” magazine bans, longer waiting periods, etc. – would have stopped the mass shootings in Aurora, Newtown, or Charleston. There could be a complete and universal ban on all firearms without exceptions, and criminals would still find ways to get their hands on guns if they really wanted them.
[Read Related Article: Chicago Police Chief Blames City’s Record Murder Rate on This (VIDEO)]
Those types of gun control laws might be aimed at criminals themselves, but legislators who write these laws don’t seem to understand that criminals don’t care about the laws. I know it’s stating the obvious, but that’s what makes them criminals.