What is right about bearing firearms?

The 2nd Amendment to the United States Constitution reads:  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.

In 1791 the bill of rights was ratified to the constitution. At that time we had no army. In fact, the framers of the constitution felt that maintaining a standing army would be a detriment to democracy. History had shown that armies had a tendency to over through the governments they were sworn to protect. But today is not 1791 and we do maintain an army and were we to draft a new constitution, we would never allow the people such a right as the second amendment.

Guns were simple tools in 1791, a necessary tool used during the American Revolution. The common folk needed guns to fight in the militia because the government didn’t provide them. In that context, the second amendment makes sense. The people need guns to protect America because America uses militias to fight wars therefore, the government shouldn’t infringe on their right to have firearms.

But we don’t use militias to fight wars today, we have the most advanced army in the world to do that. Guns aren’t simple anymore. Like America, they’ve grown in size, scale, and lethality. Weapons of war are not meant to be wielded by civilians, they’re meant to be used in the defense of one’s country. They’re made for one thing: the killing of humans.

Now I’m not saying we should do away with the second amendment entirely. I think hand guns serve a vital purpose in personal defense. Hunting rifles also serve a useful purpose. These weapons, while they can certainly kill humans, don’t produce the level of carnage we’ve seen in places like Orlando and Las Vegas.

Because assault rifles are available to pretty much any American who wants one, our movie theaters, schools, and night clubs have turned into battlefields. I don’t believe that’s what the framers of our constitution had in mind. Hand in hand with the right to bear arms must be the responsibility that right entails. It is not unreasonable as a civilized first world nation to restrict the kinds of firearms available to the common man.

I realize that changing gun regulations isn’t enough. The people who have committed the acts of terror we are seeing in our country are broken. To fix the problem with guns we must also address the mental health issues faced by so many of our countrymen. Help needs to be made available for the broken among us and we as a people need to exercise compassion when someone needs mental help.

The purpose of our laws and our government is to act in the service of the people. We want to feel safe in our homeland and I imagine very few people in Las Vegas felt safe when the bullets started raining down on them. Thoughts and prayers aren’t enough. It’s time for real sensible change where firearms and mental health is concerned. Too many have died under the misguided principal written into our constitution. It’s time we the people demand that weapons of war remain only in the hands of those men and women in uniform, trained in their use, and who have taken an oath to defend our country.

One Reply to “What is right about bearing firearms?”

  1. “Arms” needs to be defined and in what context! I have heard it said that one of the readons the Japanese did not invade the west coast of the US after Pearl Harbor was because of their belief that every American home was armed!

Comments are closed.