If anyone knows their history, then they know about the Constitution. They also know about the amendments to that precious document and particularly the second one. The Second Amendment regards the possession of weapons and our right to “bear arms”. If you have looked deeper into the reasoning behind the amendment, then you know exactly why US Citizens have the right to bear arms.
We have the right to bear arms to protect ourselves from the government. Sure, times have changed, but society is somewhat similar. The world is still corrupted (in places). Wars drive on. Tyrants exist and are born each day.
However, here we are today (in 2013) and the US Government (not all of it) is aiming to increase restrictions on gun possession, make it harder for citizens to use weapons and, in some states, ban the use of guns. If our right to bear arms is to protect ourselves from the government, then why is the government allowed to take that right away?
If you use the internet or go outside your home, then you have definitely heard about the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting. In Newtown, CT a lone gunman entered the school and shot down a few adults and around twenty little children. Before that, a lone gunman entered a movie theater and gunned down a crowd of people watching the new Batman.
If you have read the news or statistics, then you should be familiar with the death toll for the war. Since America “came to the Middle East’s aid” (ha.), thousands of innocent citizens have been murdered by US soldiers. The US Government calls this ‘collateral damage’ and many ignorant citizens choose to accept that.
If Barack Obama, and many other politicians are willing to go against the Constitution (the core of our government), then why do we continue to be on the ‘offense’ with our military and not just the defense? Note: The point of this comparison is not to convince you to take a stance against war. The reasoning is as follows.
It is interesting how the wars have changed policies to give the government more power over the people. With the recent shootings, the power is being taken from the people. The US Government is supposedly for and by the people. However, it seems to be based much more on distrust by the people. Over the years, US Citizens have freely given up their rights to the government, justifying their lack of freedom as necessary to fight terrorism and violence.
Along with that scary thought (that has factual backing), there are many other reasons why the government should not be taking away our right to bear arms. For example, in Washington D.C. the crimes committed with guns INCREASED after there was a gun ban. During that same time period, the crimes committed with guns in states that ALLOWED citizens to bear arms actually DECREASED. Does banning guns prevent crime? Maybe it does, but it is not definite – And history proves that.
Now, this is mostly a concept, but it is quite reasonable. Think about this theoretical (yet common) scenario:
You are in a room with one other person.
Something drives you to be absolutely angry with that person.
You want to fight that person in the room.
He is a small guy and you could EASILY take him down. You fight him.
But what if the other guy was huge, packed with muscle and a perfect fighter?
Egos aside, you may still fight him, but you’d at least think twice.
If a criminal is going to rob a bank, he most likely just needs to take care of the one (maybe two) security guard on duty. He just needs to get back to his car before the police show up. However, what if there were 15 guards? I doubt he’d even consider robbing the place. Imagine if those 15 guards weren’t in uniform, but actually regular citizens with concealed weapons.
But hey, what do I know. Probably not much. I mean, think about it – Perhaps it WILL work. To get rid of heroin, you just ban heroin! That way nobody can get heroin. Oops, wait! Heroin IS banned, and it is a crime (to possess it) resulting in prison time. Banning guns will not stop all gun use – It will take rights away from law-abiding citizens; maybe some will, but most criminals will not care.
Here’s another thought. “If you take away the availability of guns, or make it harder to get, then potential lone shooters can’t get a gun to shoot anyone.” False. If someone is willing to gun down children, they are willing to go find a gun. People can say this though: “Well, if it was harder to access guns, then the Sandy Hook shooter would not have shot anyone” (note: Sandy Hook shooter acted impulsively, and did not plan his actions). My argument is “Sure, he would not have shot anyone. But you yourself have just plainly admitted that the only reason he would not shoot anyone is because of guns. He would still exist though.” My point is that perhaps gun laws isn’t the right topic at all. Controlling guns is only a ‘bandaid’ for the problem at hand. To solve this issue we will have to discover and cure all of the mentally unstable.
With and without guns, there have been wars, murders, serial killers and mass killings all the way back to the medieval age. So is it even possible to “cure” society? I don’t think so, but I also don’t think that banning guns will solve the issue either.
If the US Government takes away the peoples’ right to bear arms, then not only will they violate the constitution, they will be making a rash change that doesn’t have a definite result, and they will also be making it easier for criminals to commit crimes.