I have always been iffy about the Second Amendment. I'm in favor of gun control, but not uber-strict gun control.
First though, I would really like to point out the text of the Second Amendment.
"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."
The first phrase is the most important. Well-regulated militia necessary to the security of a free state.
There are two definitions for the word militia (both are taken from Merriam-Webster's online dictionary).
- a part of the organized armed forces of a country liable to call only in emergency
- a body of citizens organized for military service
As it stands, the closest thing to the first definition is the National Guard, which is under 500,000 (a far cry from the U.S's estimated 300 million). And the second thing doesn't really happen anymore. Historically, to prevent totalitarian takeover, which was a fear of the new country that recently broke away from the British Empire, people believed that another revolution may be necessary. However, the Election of 1800 (referred to as the "Revolution" of 1800 where power switched from Federalist John Adams to Democratic Republican Thomas Jefferson via democratic election) demonstrated that such things can be done through a legitimate electoral process, rather than a coup.
In other words, what I am asserting is that the 2nd Amendment doesn't really protect our rights to firearms.
But let's look at it another way. I'm not going to be found owning or even holding a gun unless it's a Nerf gun, but others legitimately feel like it's a form of self-defense. That's fine. What should happen is a complete ban on assault weapons sold to civilians, as well as more and more background checks, especially at gun shows. Many shootings could be prevented by a simple background check showing that the buyer is mentally unstable. Will that prevent everything? No. But it wouldn't be completely ineffective either.
Log in to comment