To Bear Arms Or Not An Argument For And Against Gun Control
Bookmark this page and share it with others! (Or press Ctrl/D on Firefox)(Disclaimer: The opinions stated here are posed by the author of the web site to challenge the current trend of thought in order to create controversy. The author admits to heated and over dramatic speech in order to provoke a reaction and to spark thought in those who come across this site. As the author, I do not necessarily agree 100% with everything I have laid on the table, but on the other hand do agree that all arguments presented are valid. The opinions stated are only of the author and not of the sponsors.)
"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 Second Amendment
How could such a simple statement cause so much controversy over 200 years after this was written? We have people who want to ban the use of any type of fire arm and others who want to allow anyone own any weapon of their choice without restriction. Both want to use this Amendment to back up their position.
Back then, it was a totally different society. When this was written, plans were being made to always be prepared in case they had to defend the concept of this new nation against Mother England or any other country that may have ideas to take over. They did not want any government to restrict the use of a common citizen to have a firearm in the event they had to defend their land from an approaching enemy.
The common citizens with arms were known as the militia. They needed to be prepared at a moment's notice in case of attack. Weapons within reach, they could fight to secure their free state. It was a necessity to have a militia back then.
Today the militia still exists and it is commonly referred to as the National Guards. We also have the Army, Navy, Air Force and Marines. All are organized on a more professional level of military service than the original militia groups and run by our government, very much regulated.
To every country, a military is always necessary to maintain in the event of a hostile enemy. It would make no sense to assemble a quick, untrained troop if the country were being attacked suddenly. It needs trained people willing and ready and trained to do battle to minimize casualties among the civilian population.
The Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms was set up in the context to keep a well regulated militia. Therefore those who would participate in the militia should keep and bear arms in order to secure the free state.
Guns. It is not an intangible freedom like freedoms of speech, freedom of religion, freedom of press, right to vote, right to due process... Guns are tangible objects. Had they been invented in the times of George Washington, would we also have the right to drive cars without restriction?
Guns are tools, nothing more and nothing less. In the hands of someone who is trained to use them, it can kill the right target. In the hands of someone else, it can kill the wrong target. Guns are use not only to kill, but to hunt and for target practice. Guns are considered a sport and recreation. People even collect them as a hobby.
Guns are also a threat when in the wrong hands. Too many children have easy access to them. Criminals and those with mental health problems are not supposed to have them, but can still access them. Guns used to protect the home from intruders are used more often against the family itself.
Guns can also prevent a bad situation from getting out of hand, but only when used by someone who is trained to handle such situations. A level headed person who owns a gun and finds themselves in a shoot out would know how to calmly react and aim in order to take out the person shooting everyone without hurting an innocent victim in the crossfire or getting shot themselves.
The fact is, unless you are bearing arms in order to maintain a militia, you do not have a Constitutional right to own a gun. Besides that is another key word, "regulated" militia. In other words, there would be regulations to the militia and the gun ownership.
So why the controversy? Guns are a very profitable industry with money flowing in the pockets of the manufacturers, politicians who have a vested interest to protect the industry, the NRA, mom and pop gun shops, gun trade shows and other organizations. To eliminate, ban or in any way restrict the free trade and use in guns would cut into their money.
On the other side is a group that wants to dictate what someone can and cannot own. Even if guns were not mentioned in the Second Amendment, does one have the right in a free society to tell someone else what they can and cannot own in their own private property?
I think most people would agree they would feel squeamish if their next door neighbor was harboring radioactive wastes, anthrax, or cyanide gas. In fact, there are laws against anyone owning such things since they are considered dangerous weapons and a threat to society at large. How does that compare to a gun?
A gun is indeed a dangerous weapon. Countless people die due to misuse of a firearm. Death by handgun is one of the leading causes of death in young people under age 18. It is also the most preventable cause of death.
Society at large has a fetish for getting things done in a hurry without thinking things out or working through the problem. The US has an Old West mentality of shooting first and asking questions later. When there is a problem it is easier to pull a trigger to get rid of the problem than to talk it out or work out a solution.
We live in a country where violence is glamorized. We see shootings on television and movies and don’t think twice about how clean and efficient the death appeared, but do not get the gory details of what happens in a shooting. We don’t see the blood most of the time and when we do, it is an obvious fake Hollywood mixture.
If you shoot someone, not only is there blood, but if the bullet goes through the head, the skull is usually fractured and half the brains go out the other side. If the bullet is trapped inside, there could be internal hemorrhaging that will cause the organs to slowly and painfully cause the end to a life. Bleeding in the abdominal area will cause the gut to extend giving the “pregnant belly” look. A gun shooting is not clean or pretty or dramatic or glorious. It is painful, deadly, gruesome and ugly.
I would definitely say that guns would qualify as a dangerous weapon that is a threat to our society. The most dangerous aspect of the gun is the person behind the gun. If the gun was bought with all good intentions to use it only for self defense, collecting, or hunting, it does not mean the good intentions will always be in place.
A gun collector might have guns locked away with good intention never meaning to have their child and the neighbor’s child opening the case and accidentally shooting each other.
A hunter might have intended to use the weapon only for killing deer but use it in a fit of passion and kill his wife.
A woman might keep a gun in her purse to protect herself from a mugger only to get shot with her own gun by a mugger who has been watching her longer and prepared for a confrontation.
Guns in use today are not used for the same purpose for which the Second Amendment was formed. It is a big business. Too many people have a special interest in keeping guns available. They squawk at the mention to limit access (or regulate) to arms.
Even if we were to eliminate all guns, that in no way guarantees people will not be killed by guns, but the numbers would go way down. True, if guns are outlawed then only outlaws will have guns. What is the percentage of outlaws and people who typically exhibit criminal behavior? Estimates show that criminal types in all populations range from 1-10% of the population. That would leave a good 90-99% of good citizens unarmed and an armed police force who would enforce the law.
If criminals were not worried about the victims they intend on overcoming having the means to blow them away, they are not as likely to shoot first. Conversely, if everyone in a society were armed, a criminal will think twice before committing a crime, but if they are bent on it will probably take out as many as possible before going down.
Bookmark this page (Or press Ctrl/D on Firefox)
Share it with others!
Find It Now
