The Los Angeles bank robbery and running gun battle is now history. Let's look at the surrounding events.
Presidents since F.D.Roosevelt have been strong promoters of more strict gun legislation. Their reason is to fight crime. Has it worked? NO! Gun control legislation does nothing but put restraints on Law Abiding and Law Enforcement personnel. With the loose U.S. borders illegal firearms can be smuggled as easy or in some cases more easily than drugs. Some of the illegal gun importers have been discovered selling guns to gangs. Most recently news reports have tied these death merchants of the American people to supporters of the 1996 Clinton/Gore Campaign.
Imagine if the liberals had their way and there were no guns owned by individuals and no more gun shops. The police of L.A. were out gunned in that battle. Bullets were bouncing off the body armor of the robbers like tennis balls. Only with the quick thinking of one of the officers to commandeer some hi-powered weapons from a legal local gun dealer were the police able to put down those gunmen. This is the way the 2nd Amendment was designed to work. We as U.S. citizens have a responsibility to support our local law enforcement.
What I haven't seen yet is an award to the Officer and legal gun dealer who helped bring down those gunmen. Will President Clinton call the Officer and the legal gun dealer heroes? Will they be called to the White House to receive a medal? Or, will the legal gun dealer face federal and state charges for violating the Brady Bill for providing police guns? Will the gun battle be soon forgotten by the liberal left? Will the liberal left try to take away our freedoms because of two whacked out bank robbers. The whole reason for the second amendment is so that we all can come to the aid and assistance of the law and the government that protects our freedom.
So the next you talk to a Liberal about gun rights ask them where would the L.A. Police have been with out a legal gun dealer to provide them with the needed firepower.
I guess the point I am trying to make here is the liberals in L.A. were most likely the ones who had the police force downsize their sidearms. What most people don't understand is that when the bullets start flying it then becomes a war zone and the persons with the most fire power and can hit the target will win/live. When it comes to that who would you want supporting the local police the local citizens or would you want the Federal Government with their history of overkill?
When I was in elementary school the first ten amendments were known as the Bill of Rights. They are the rights granted us by the founders of this country. It is very simple, the bill tells the boundaries of government, what it cannot do! The Second Amendment reads as follows: "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the Right of the people to Keep and Bear Arms, shall not be infringed." What I still don't understand is how can anyone argue that amendment's definition. It is clear and to the point, "the Right of the people to Keep and Bear Arms, shall not be infringed." The definition of infringed is: "to encroach upon in a way that violates the rights of another." In short the government cannot legally make any law that will encroach on the right to keep and bear arms. Our government has made encroachments with restrictive laws and this needs to be changed. All gun laws need to be removed from all state and federal books.