The liberal assault against the Second Amendment continues to rage on with the state of Vermont set to sign a whole pack of new gun restrictions into law.
The restrictions are the result of a nationwide push to see strict limits placed on the right to bear arms after a tragic and deadly school shooting in Parkland, Florida left 17 people dead.
The Burlington Free Press is reporting:
The measure, which the House approved this week and Republican Gov. Phil Scott has said he will sign, reflects a remarkable turnaround for a state that has long opposed gun control measures.
Scott acknowledged that many Vermonters would be disappointed by the vote and by his support for provisions that he opposed as recently as two months ago.
“I share it. I know why they are disappointed,” Scott said. “But I think at the end of the day, they’ll soon learn that what we have proposed, what’s being passed at this time, doesn’t intrude upon the Second Amendment. It doesn’t take away guns, and I believe that we will get accustomed to the new normal, which is trying to address this underlying violence that we are seeing across the nation.”
The turning point in this state came one day after the school shooting in Parkland, Florida, that killed 17 people: A Vermont teenager was arrested on charges he was planning a shooting at the Fair Haven Union High School, which he once attended. Vermont police said tragedy was averted only because a friend of the teenager alerted authorities.
Nearly 2,500 students and other gun control supporters made an appearance in front of the Vermont Statehouse for the March For Our Lives protest, but a large number of folks in favor of the Second Amendment have also been making their presence known, sporting orange vests and providing vocal opposition to the call for gun control.
At the end of the day, gun control doesn’t actually solve the real problem. It’s nothing more than a band aid, and a pretty poor one at that.
We already have a number of strict gun control measures on the book that have repeatedly failed to be enforced, thus not providing the promised layer of protection these laws were designed to give.
Is more law, which will likely also not be enforced, really the answer? Is removing guns from the hands of law abiding citizens going to stop the issue of human evil? Or is it possible this is only going to create more victims in the long haul?
If you do some simple research, the answer is clear.