“Ladies and gentlemen, there seems to be a situation in a high school in California. Preliminary reports are inconclusive, but there seems to be shooter on the campus. We’ll bring you the details shortly.”
No, that’s not a broken record you’re hearing: that’s machine gun fire. Currently, America is stuck in a debate over the touchy and trigger-happy subject of gun control. After countless acts of mass violence, the debate has been flooded with mixed emotions. Some people have met this problem with a grievous cry for regulation; others have frantically drained their local gun shop of all merchandise. Is there a method to this madness?
Obviously, each side has their reasoning. I mean, nobody would actually intend to supply the mentally unstable with firearms. Both the proponents and the adversaries of gun control bring an argument to the table. Some arguments just happen to be slightly more sensible.
With proposals of gun control on the horizon, disciples of the NRA are grabbing their shotgun and a copy of the Bill of Rights as they prepare for political battle. But what do they really have supporting them? This nation’s gun-lobbying powerhouse relies on the following phrase, as taken verbatim from the Constitution: “[T]he right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.”
Now, some claim that this set of words solves the issue right away. After all, the words seem rather straightforward. However, as we’ve come to know, nothing is as simple as it sounds.
First of all, let’s leap back to the era in which the Second Amendment was written. As these words were ratified, the United States had just tossed off a restrictive monarchy and found itself with boundless freedom to establish a definition of liberty. To our Founding Fathers, that meant they would set aside a provision for the American people to keep guns – more accurately, single-shot muskets.
This guarantee of personal gun ownership has been accepted for over two centuries. Over the past two centuries, however, guns have not stayed the same. The single-shot musket has evolved into a fully automatic assault weapon that people claim to use as their “hunting rifle.” You’re not fooling anyone. That’s not for hunting, that’s for spraying the forest with bullets hoping to hit a Bambi.
The truth of the matter is that these guns have no reason to be on the market. Military-grade weapons deserve a spot only among their namesake. Such dangerous weapons need to be removed from the public hands.
Now, don’t go rent a U-Haul and pack it with guns before heading off to Canada just yet. It’s not just about restricting certain firearms. It’s about restricting who can possess one in the first place. I want you to pause for one moment and actually see if you can think of a downside to using background checks. Can’t think of anything? Not surprising. After all, it does seem to be common sense that we wouldn’t want criminals to own lethal weapons.
I’m not trying to tell you that background checks and certain restrictions will solve all of our gun problems – I’m not naïve. I do know, however, that standing by and doing nothing is far from the right response. When children have to live in fear of an armed intruder to their school, that’s when you know that America’s current prevention is inadequate. So unless you have a better idea, I suggest we protect our citizenry.