Gun Control & the 2nd Amendment

            Our Founding Fathers set up this country to be the greatest country in the world. Looking at how far we’ve come, it’d be hard to argue these men did a poor job in laying our country’s foundation. However, time has passed since the Constitution was written, and with time comes change. An amendment which sat near and dear to the hearts of many citizens during the early days of America is our right to bear arms; so much so this right is the second section to our Bill of Rights. After events like the recent movie theater shooting in Aurora, Colorado I can’t help but wonder if this amendment is a little outdated. The reasoning behind the 2^nd Amendment was to prevent the U.S. from becoming a dictatorship and to not allow totalitarian power into the country. Those writing the Constitution wanted to give as much power to the people as possible, as we feared we could someday slip back into a governmental rule similar to what we dealt with under the British. Seeing how much has changed from then to now, how important is it to still have an amendment which makes sure our citizens are able to be armed? If the government does something we disapprove of, it seems old-fashioned to say we will physically fight back using weapons.

            The shootings at Columbine high school, at Virginia Tech, in Tucson Arizona, and now in Aurora Colorado, were all accomplished using weapons which had been legally purchased. This begs the question, should we do something about our gun laws in this country? The 2^nd Amendment says the government should not “infringe” on people’s right to have firearms, as “a well regulated Militia [is] necessary to the security of a free State.” It doesn’t appear any of these massacres were completed by individuals who had any intention of being part of the militia. As long as we as citizens can bear some sort of arms then our government isn’t exactly “infringing” on this right. We have restrictions when it comes to drugs, voting, running for office, and drinking alcoholic beverages in this country – why can’t we draw a line and put in place stricter regulations when it comes to the buying, possessing, and using firearms?

            Hand guns and rifles can be used for recreational sporting and hunting purposes, and often make individuals feel safer and more protected. Assault weapons on the other hand have no purpose other than to kill. There is no reason why a regular citizen needs to own an automatic or semiautomatic gun. These types of assault weapons are really made for professional use only. This includes military, and perhaps some police enforcement. It can be argued if more people are armed perhaps we will be able to stop crazy people who plan and perform such awful events like the shooting which took place this past weekend in Aurora. But would we actually be safer if more people are armed, or would we be better off if less people owned and carried around weapons? In hindsight, letting the Brady Bill lapse and expire in 2004 probably wasn’t the best decision. Yes, if someone really wants to obtain a gun he will find a way to do so, whether it’s illegal or not. But this does not mean we cannot, or should not make it harder for these people to get their hands on such weapons.

           New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg recently called upon President Obama and Presidential Candidate Mitt Romney to talk about gun control. Neither candidate has taken a stance on how they feel about the 2^nd Amendment, as this would be political suicide given the extremely polarized feelings this topic seems to cause. People around the world tend to view America as being fairly gun-obsessed since it is illegal to own such weapons in many other countries. However, since we do have the right to bear arms, as noted in the Constitution, it makes sense we as citizens wouldn’t want that right to be taken away: if the government takes away one of our rights, it sets a precedent that it is alright to take ways other rights/freedoms in the future. Therefore, the 2^nd Amendment may never be abolished, and given how well Prohibition worked out the chances of successfully abolishing the 2^nd Amendment are slim thanks to underground markets. Regulation of the 2^nd Amendment may however be necessary.

            Regulations such as requiring gun owners to purchase insurance for their weapon(s), similar to how we are required to purchase insurance in order to drive vehicles, might be a step in the right direction. Another type of regulation which may lower the changes of shooting tragedies becoming realities would be to require those with guns to take classes in order to gain the proper education needed prior to owning and operating such weapons. We can also regulate gun control by requiring individuals to pass psychological exams to make sure weapons aren’t being put in the hands of people with unsound minds, or by establishing a follow-up program to keep better and more up-to-date tabs on gun owners. Making it illegal to purchase and own automatic and semiautomatic assault weapons in this country, unless for military purposes, might not be a bad idea either. Let’s be honest: what reason, other than the intention to kill, is there for average citizenry to need possession of such weapons? Sure, any changes to the 2^nd Amendment or any added gun regulations may not be instated right away. Mayor Bloomberg seems to have hit the nail on the head with this one though – there’s no harm in starting up conversation about gun control both inside and outside Congress.