As tragic as any death is, one or more deaths by a firearm seems to really spark outrage at inanimate objects. Why? It does not seem appropriate if you think about it rationally. The problem is that if someone despises an idea or concept then they feel they should thrust their ire and views on everyone by having laws changed etc. The real issue that this causes with guns is that, per the constitutions ‘Bill of Rights’ we are (and should be) protected from any sort of law that would deny us the availability and/or use of any firearm.
According to the National Archives website (http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/bill_of_rights.html) ‘During the debates on the adoption of the Constitution, its opponents repeatedly charged that the Constitution as drafted would open the way to tyranny by the central government. Fresh in their minds was the memory of the British violation of civil rights before and during the Revolution. They demanded a “bill of rights” that would spell out the immunities of individual citizens.’
Now, if we look at the order of the Bill of Rights we see the following for the first 2 amendments:
Amendment I
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
Amendment II
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.
It is important to note that the very first issue that needed to be resolved was the freedom of speech, religion, press, assembly and to be able to petition the government. The 2nd Amendment states that we need a well regulated militia to maintain our freedom AND the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed. The second amendment was their to make sure that the first amendment did not get infringed upon.
Many have tried ‘interpreting’ the second amendment and have twisted and turned it so that it fits their own view but looking at it from the perspective of why the Bill of Rights was added to begin with was (according to the National Archives) ‘Opponents of the Constitution demanded a “bill of rights” that would spell out the immunities of individual citizens.’ which to me means that the original amendments were meant for individual citizens!
There are those who claim that this document was written at a time when arms were not as powerful as they are now etc. True, but their is nothing in there that is specific to any firearm of the time either which I interpret as meaning an individual should be able to arm himself with any firearm that anyone else may be able to use against them. If we apply the same principle to the first amendment then the government can say their is nothing in the 1st amendment about the internet so we can censor that! Freedom of press meant the printing press!! How would you feel if people tried using that argument for censoring the internet? I am sure you would feel its ridiculous yet its the same principle many use for their argument against the 2nd amendment.
I understand that there are those that do not like guns and think they should be outlawed but they are as protected as the free speech that we enjoy.
Lets think about this: If we take away guns from gun violence or gun crimes then we still have violence and crimes! This does not fix the problem. If we remove violence from gun violence then all we have is guns which by itself does nothing! Small steps of limiting certain guns or how many rounds can be in a clip are just the same type of infringement only in smaller doses. They think that they can slowly take away small pieces here and there and before you know it they accomplish their goal of no guns. This will not make us any safer, it will only make us more vulnerable to those who do not follow the law.
How about if the government said that ‘since the speed limit in my state is only a maximum of 65mph then there is no need for any vehicle that can travel faster than that! Lets submit bills that would require vehicles to have restrictors so they do not exceed the speed limit. Although you may think it sounds like a good idea I cannot think of anyone who would buy a car like that let alone allow that kind of law to be passed, its just ridiculous.
Guns are not bad.
Guns in the hands of citizens are not bad.
Guns in the hands of bad people are real bad!
Simple solution is to eliminate bad people then, dont you think!
