As Maine’s Representative in the First District, I’ll measure all potential legislation against the same set of rules.
- It must be Constitutional. The Founders made provisions for the Constitution to be amended, but they made no provisions for it to be ignored.
- It must be necessary, and in proportion to the size of the problem it addresses. I am a proponent of smaller government. I don’t believe that every problem requires a government solution.
- It must have a reasonable expectation of solving the problem. I’m not a fan of the “do something even if it’s wrong” school of thought. I’m especially not a fan of the “don’t worry if it accomplishes nothing, as long as it looks good to the voters” school of thought.
I've watched with amusement as candidates for office stage
photo-ops of themselves hunting, in order to court the votes
of gun owners. I suspect that most people aren't fooled by
their theatrics; their brand-new hunting clothes always look
so stiff on them. I didn't enter this race to "pose"
as someone I'm not, so let me begin with this statement: I
don't own a gun and I'm not a hunter. I don't need to do either
in order to read and understand the Constitution, or to practice
common sense
The Second Amendment refers to an individual right, just like the rest of the rights enshrined in the Constitution. This is supported by the writings of the Founders of our country, as well as by common sense. If someone suggested waiting periods for news stories they would be denounced, as well they should. If you need the permission of government to do something it’s not a right; it’s a privilege.
Maine has a rate of gun ownership second only to Alaska, and yet both Maine and Alaska are very safe states. This would argue against guns being the cause of violence. Washington, D.C has an almost complete ban on guns and a shamefully high murder rate. Just across the bridge in Arlington, Va. they have far less gun control and a much lower murder rate. If the goal is to make people safer, it would appear that restricting gun ownership for law-abiding citizens is not the answer.
Gun-free zones make no sense to me, especially since the Virginia Tech tragedy. Concealed carry permit holders go through extra scrutiny before they’re deemed trustworthy. What makes them less trustworthy if they’re in a Post Office or on a college campus? Where’s the sense in disarming law-abiding people because criminals abuse guns?
I will support laws that make life more difficult for criminals. I will not support laws that make life more difficult for law-abiding citizens.
|
