Alot of news coverage following recent shooting incidents has generated a bit of an anti gun sentiment in the media. The actions perpetrated by these individuals led to terrible tragedies that have been rightly condemned by these news stories, but there seems to be an undertone of anti gun ownership for even law biding Americans. Three of the more recent shootings were perpetrated by individuals that had obtained their licence to carry firearms legally, and as happens often after tragedies of this nature gun control arguments have started to pop up across both the traditional media and the blogosphere.
There is a particular argument raised by some individuals and groups that certain types of weapons should not be available to citizens (fully automatic or assault rifles) because of their intended purpose of being built as anti personnel weapons rather as hunting or hobby purposes. While I can understand this point of view being put forth, I must disagree when taking a closer look at our constitution. 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. This means that the right to bear arms is not just for the purposes of gaming or personal defense. The right to bear arms is one of our fundamental rights to ensure that every American citizen can be prepared to take up arms in a militia in the event that the United States comes under a major attack.
Many that would make the previously stated argument may think that this notion is antiquated and not relevant to modern day society, but many empirical and imperialist powers throughout history have fallen because of comfortable complacency and idea that their society is invincible. The fall of Rome comes to mind as it was a surprise to many roman citizens. It would be foolish to disregard the history of human civilization and assume that our society is somehow immune or different. I don't contest that such an event is more likely these days compared to the past when it isn't, but having this level of preparation was extremely important to our founding fathers. Hell, this is the second thing that they thought of. The founders of our nation recognized the great importance of being able to draw up armed militias from the civilian population.
In an era where people are more and more willing to give up constitutional rights in the name of security, I can't think of a more important right to preserve. Touching back on individuals that may abuse their second amendment rights to perpetrate crime or harm others in their communities, limiting what types of guns people can get or banning firearms completely in my opinion would not prevent these things from happening. The funny thing about cliches is that they stand the test of time for a reason. That reason is there usually being at least a degree of truth to them.there is a cliche that is very appropriate when talking about second amendment issues, and you have undoubtedly seen it on a bumper sticker, T-shirt, or shouted at an NRA rally: When guns are outlawed only outlaws will have guns.
This issue is always very divisive and incendiary, so I am especially interested in getting thoughts and insights from all sides of the political spectrum. Agree? Disagree? Weigh in and let me know where you stand!