One of the big topics of the day, one that will only get bigger as the election draws nearer, is that of gun control. I have seen arguments promoting total disarmament and those promoting no regulation at all, and everything in between. In light of the recent rash of shootings, beginning with the theater shooting in Aurora, CO, proponents of more gun control argue that the shooter shouldn’t have been able to purchase the weapons, and crises like this could be avoided with stricter gun laws. One person I know said, “I don’t see any reason why any person should have an automatic weapon.”
On the other side are those who argue that the problem is not with too few gun laws, but with the individuals and a decreasing respect for the value of human life. Somewhere beyond that line are those who see a conspiracy in everything, suggesting that these shootings are planned as a deliberate attempt to legislate stricter gun laws, as Megadeth frontman Dave Mustaine reportedly believes.
I’m sure you’ve heard the arguments on both sides, and you’ve already made up your mind about what you think. Whether you believe disarming will reduce violence or whether you think “if guns are outlawed only outlaws will have guns,” likely any argument for the other side will fall on deaf ears.
However, I would like to point out one thing: debating gun control laws on the basis of reducing violence or protecting an individual’s right to bear arms is essentially missing the point.
Currently in the United States we have the privilege of enjoying certain liberties, one of which is the right to keep and bear arms. The second amendment states: 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.
Of course, no one is sure exactly what that means, which is why we’ve been arguing about it for the last couple hundred years.
There are many interpretations and even more interpretations of those interpretations, based on other parts of the constitution and other writings of the founding fathers. But there is one key idea I think bears remembering.
The point is not just that sportsmen have the right to own a gun for hunting, although certainly that is their right and it should not be taken away from them.
Nor is the point just self-defense, although absolutely people have the right to defend themselves, their families, and their property, and the right to bear arms is a crucial part of self-defense.
The point is that one of the reasons the second amendment was added in the first place is so the people could defend themselves against the government.
As long as private citizens have the right to bear arms and protect themselves from threats, the government cannot effectively take control of everything. Martial law cannot be effectively imposed, and the people cannot be forced to submit to totalitarian rule.
Little by little, we as a nation are voting ourselves out of our rights. We’ve already allowed ourselves to be taxed if we don’t purchase something, all in the name of “health.” We’ve allowed the government to take our privacy in the name of “security.” We’ve allowed our children to be indoctrinated in the name of “education.” There are hundreds of other examples of rights we’ve given up because we believe the hype and propaganda that tells us it will be better.
As long as we keep giving our rights and liberties to the government, the government will keep taking. One of the last things standing between We the People and a dictatorship is our right to keep and bear arms, to defend ourselves from hostile takeover.
So, whether or not you like guns yourself, or whether you believe there’s no reason a person should have access to an assault rifle for whatever reason, please consider the implications of a disarmed populace. Think about how many liberties and rights you’re prepared to give away and consider defending your right keep and bear arms, because as soon as we give up that right, the government will take the rest of our rights by force.
[...] Disarmed [...]
It’s not the guns we need to control, but the dangerous substances each of the gunman have been on in the last fifty years; whether street drugs or prescription.
The rate of incidents has increased directly proportional to the cuts in funding for psychiatric services and the passing of laws regarding “patients’ rights.” We now have a situation where a person can be completely off their nut, and no one can make them get treatment or stick with it unless they attack someone and cause them harm.
We also have a situation where physicians and psychiatrists are prescribing drugs which should only be administered to begin with in a highly supervised setting because the side effects are completely unpredictable and range in severity from mildly uncomfortable to complete psychosis causing a danger to the patient and others–and the patient takes the prescription home with them and takes it from day one with next to no supervision available or provided.
And, patients’ families, friends and neighbors–even law enforcement–are legally unable to have them committed for treatment when psychosis occurs, again, unless they actually attack someone. If they do not kill themselves, they are sent to jail, and their act is treated as a behavioral problem necessitating criminal justice.
While I am all for the protection of patient information and patients’ rights for persons who are responsible and competent, the lack of a mechanism for gaining help for those who are a danger to themselves or others, and need psychiatric treatment has become a curse and a plague on our society.
So then, I wonder; what are we going to do about it, so that this situation doesn’t continue?
Well said, Krysti!
We need guns to protect us from a government that seeks to steal our rights? The military has surrounded each and every city, town, village, and hamlet in our nation? They have taken our knives, fists, rocks, bows, homemade spears, and molotov cocktails?
Yes, we need guns. We have ceded our rights to a corrupt political system run by money and PACs. They have divided us into two camps, each reviling the other. They fight with the IRS and bureaucracy. We fight with Facebook and Twitter.
We need guns! When we wake up as a nation and discover how apathetic and stupid we have been, we can collectively blow our brains out.
As Pogo said, “We have met the enemy, and he is us”
Tiff posted this on Facebook and its a topic that’s been frequented since the Newtown massacre. The right to bear arms is a legal one, not divine. No one was endowed by their creator with an inalienable right to possess an assault rifle. The second amendment was written by people, and it can be changed by people. It is time we did so. Why? Our Constitution is designed to be changed if needed. That we would do so when needed is the common sense our founders pinned their future experiment in government on. That we would refuse to do so because we came to regard our Constitution as sacred and unalterable would have left them flabbergasted. They could have imagined such ignorance, but never that it would be so pervasive. The Constitution works for us, we do not work for it.
Am I proposing we disarm the country? I am not. Am I proposing that military weapons be kept out of the hands of civilians? Yes I am, and doing so through the established, legal process for changing the Constitution. You argue such weapons are necessary to protect us from the government, but neglect to tell us how we are to protect ourselves from each other. The authors of the second amendment could not have envisioned modern weaponry. They could not have imagined it would make mass killing so easy. If we don’t make the needed changes, there won’t be any society left for the government to tyrannize.