Lawrence Diggs: Road sign destruction is not responsible use of firearms

Lawrence Diggs: Road sign destruction is not responsible use of firearms

Every time I see a road sign filled with bullet holes it suggests some people clearly should not have access to firearms. I expect the Second Amendment crowd will object to this view, but it opens a path to discussing their other views. As far as I can tell, no road sign has ever threatened anyone. How can anyone’s life or property be threatened by a road sign. What does it mean to stand your ground against a road sign? How do road signs threaten anyone’s freedom? Who eats or feeds their family roads signs. Where is the “sport” in shooting road signs. In short I can not see an argument for shooting up road signs, constitutionally or otherwise. That said, I do believe it would be entertaining to hear one. The road signs belong to all of us. Our tax dollars pay for those signs. Attacks on road signs are attacks on all of us. When road signs are shot, the holes indicate that the round traveled beyond the sign. I challenge the shooters to do the calculations to determine where the rounds will travel on exit from the signs. When the round hits at an angle, that causes it to make a dent and ricochet. Who can accurately predict where the round will land? It is my observation that people who have the intelligence to figure that out also have the intelligence not to shoot the road sign. This means that these shooters endanger the lives of […]

Click here to view original web page at Lawrence Diggs: Road sign destruction is not responsible use of firearms

Leave a Reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.