In the aftermath of last month’s rampage killing at a Sikh Temple in Wisconsin, some members of the religion are considering arming themselves in order to defend against future attacks.But, there's only one problem, I mean aside from the fact that it probably wouldn't help anyway and in all likelihood would make matters worse.
On August 5, Wade Michael Page burst into the temple in suburban Milwaukee and opened fire, killing six before police arrived on the scene.
While the Sikh religion is known for its commitment to peace and non-violence, some of its members have said enough is enough in the wake of the recent shooting. Some Sikhs are seeking to purchase firearms in order to avoid a repeat of the temple massacre.
“I think that being able to legally obtain and carry a gun is the best thing any Sikh can do, especially after 9/11 where there have been over 800 documented cases of harassment and violence against us.”
Sikhs are required by the religion to carry a ceremonial knife at all times for self-defense.
Sikhs or any other citizens in Wisconsin who wish to arm themselves will enjoy relatively lax gun restrictions. According to the National Rifle Association, there is no permitting, licensing or registration required to buy or own a handgun, rifle or shotgun.You see, places like Wisconsin make no attempt to ensure that gun owners are qualified. This is a terrible mistake. It allows many unfit people to own guns legally.
What's your opinion? Please leave a comment.
1. The Sikhs aren't specifically non-violent. Sikh units served with distinction in the British Army in India during the colonial period and in World War I.
ReplyDelete2. The kirpan--the knife worn by Sikhs--is a symbol of willingness to defend the rights of the oppressed.
It pleases me that the Sikhs are, at least in some cases, adding firearms to their self-defense armory. Mikeb, of course, is distressed that any state in the Union allows its citizens to exercise their rights without asking permission. To carry a handgun legally does require a license in Wisconsin, but that's not enough of an infringement for him.
"but that's not enough of an infringement for him"
DeleteNothing is. While he says that he doesn't wanta total gun ban, MikeyBoy would incrementally restrict them to the point of essentially being a total ban on guns. You know the type, the guy that would take a piss on you and try to tell you its raining.
"Sikhs or any other citizens in Wisconsin who wish to arm themselves will enjoy relatively lax gun restrictions. According to the National Rifle Association, there is no permitting, licensing or registration required to buy or own a handgun, rifle or shotgun."
ReplyDeleteLicneses not required in a lot of states. But ALL purchases of new weapons always requires background checks per federal law. You make it sound as if anyone can go to a gun store and buy a gun like a kid can buy candy in a candy store. Its simply not true.
"But, there's only one problem, I mean aside from the fact that it probably wouldn't help anyway and in all likelihood would make matters worse."
Really? As opposed to sitting defenseless and just get slaughtered? You assume too much and under estimate the human natures will and desire to survive.
I remember reading in another post, it was either Laci or DogGone that posted it, that the world would be a lot better off with much less people in it. If they actually believe that then I dont understand the big opposition of gun ownership since you all believe they serve no other purpose other than to kill or commit "mass murders". With that reasoning you should be advocating for the free and unrestricted access to any gun for any one at any age. You do advocate for population reduction, right??