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.
There Are Currenty 13 Comments for this Post
I agree with everything you said. Honestly the thing is the government doesn’t care about the Constitution and never will. I give us 4 or 5 more years probably less before they remove it all together. We’ll become either socialism or communism.
Hello CHILL PILL,
The USA to become either socialism or communism is quite unlikely but it’s worrying that the leaders keep treating the Constitution with disrespect. Let’s not forget that the Constitution and the free spirit of the citizens is what makes USA different from the other countries.
Harutyun.
I think that they need to be much more strict about the gun laws and do check ups and random check ups from cops and the government as well to help prevent something like this. The Sandy Hook incident could have been avoided and it is very upsetting to know that we haven’t done much to fix the issue.
Hello JADSTER,
It is really sad when innocent people die, especially if they are children. We can always say that it could have been prevented, but the reality is that it happened and from now on we have to focus on our mission – to not let it repeat.
Harutyun.
I think your argument of increasing the amount of security guards is laughable. Things are already too expensive as they are, and instead of responsible gun laws and MUCH NEEDED changes occurring, you are instead suggesting they simply hire more security? That won’t make a difference. If they’re deadset on robbing a bank, then they will indeed rob a bank.
Hello LEON,
That’s not quite true. There is unarmed security in schools but what can it do in case of a firing? The banks keep our money, our children are in the schools, so I don’t see any logical reason for not having armed security in schools.
Harutyun.
I Think that The U.S should specify some restrictions regrading using guns, many innocent people died due to the total legalistion of Guns, which is really a bad thing.
I honestly dislike getting into these time of debates, but it all boils down too one thing. I think that the US shouldn’t ban all guns, although i do think that they should watch who they give them too. But even then you never know, a person like me or you can purchase a gun and no one will expect anything of it, but then what if a normal person snaps and goes on a rampage. I think that you need too have a lot of different things done too be able to get an automatic rifle or semi automatic rifle. I also think that, it’s not the gun that kills people but it’s the person. Everyone should be able too own a gun, just not be idiots with it.
Hello Jimmy,
Interesting point you stand there! You say something completely true: “it’s not the gun that kills people but it’s the person”. So what do you suggest, that every person visits obligatory psychologist? That would cost enormous human and material resources, so it’s not the solution. But I like your idea, if you like, you can think about it for some time and write an article describing it and I will post it on Modern Politicians!
Best Regards,
Harutyun.
I will consider that, I honestly don’t know what measures we can take too help this situation perfectly. But i do think that we need too start somewhere, and fast because it’s ridiculous how much innocent people are dying because idiots are able too buy guns like a little kid can buy candy.
Hi Jimmy,
There is nothing wrong with what you suggest. We live in a free world, no matter how cliched it sounds, it is true. Everyone has the right to express his own opinion. I would be more than happy to read your ideas.
Harutyun.
I will write up an article with my opinions, and maybe you can take a look
Hello Jimmy,
I look forward reading your ideas!
Harutyun.