In light of the recent shooting at First Baptist Church, I felt led to write about the controversy over guns in our country.

The two sides of the spectrum are constantly at war with each other.

Democrats argue that there should be massive gun control concerning assault rifles, while Republicans argue their Second Amendment rights. The Democrats believe that setting more restrictions surrounding large-capacity magazines and assault rifles will fix the problem, and Republicans have a passion for their natural right to keep and bear arms.

The Second Amendment states that "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." A common argument on the left side of the political spectrum is that that statement was created when assault rifles didn’t exist. Oddly enough, the percentage of murders that are committed using handguns as oppose to rifles is drastic-- as in, in 2016, 47% of murders were committed using handguns, while barely 2% were done through use of a rifle. To put it in perspective, 4.4% of murders in the US in 2016 were committed without using any weapon at all-- just hands and feet.

The statement made by the Bill of Rights is black and white.

It says that the right of the people to keep and bear arms-- note it doesn't say what type of arms-- shall not be infringed. It never says "shall not be infringed, unless it's a really big gun that scares people is created. Then infringe the right." No! That would be silly!

Our founding fathers had one thing in mind when they wrote down the Second Amendment: One day, the government and its people will inevitably try to take away the natural right that humans have to protect themselves using whatever means necessary, and that right needs to be protected.

Let's look at this from the point of view of the First Amendment, using the same argument that people have against the Second Amendment: that the technology we have now (assault rifles) didn't exist when the amendment was written (muskets). And by the way, the American Revolution was won because our country was armed with regular citizens who were armed. Without a government to oppress their natural rights, the American men of 1775 were able to use their muskets and assorted weaponry to win the ownership of our great country.

Say you see something negative about a certain political figure on the news. Say that that statement (true or not), made you furious. Like, steam coming out of your ears, red-faced you look like angry Donald Duck furious. You can't do anything about it because that statement is protected by the First Amendment. Even though social media, TV news, radio news, memes, YouTube montages, Tweets, SNL skits, etc. didn't exist back in the day, those forms of free speech are still protected by the First Amendment. Back when the First Amendment was written down, they only had protests and newspapers-- they couldn't even fathom how much the freedom of speech rule would come into play over 200 years later.

With the same logic that gun-control advocates use to argue that assault rifles should be banned, opinions expressed over social media should be banned as well. Social media was not in play when the First Amendment was written, thus, any opinions expressed as such should be banned. Sounds silly, right? Times have changed, but the core values of the United States haven't.

Taking away the rights of the American people isn't going to fix acts of terrorism, it's going to make everything worse.

Remember when alcohol was illegal back in the 1920s? Remember how it was still prevalent in society, even though people had to be secretive about it? If people are desperate enough, they will go to any means necessary to get what they want. Why not give rights to the people who will use weapons responsibly so that they are around to combat those who use them irresponsibly?

How long does it take for first responders to arrive once they've been made aware of the situation? Ten minutes at best? Maybe longer, depending on the area, the weather, the seriousness of the incident. Ten minutes doesn't seem like that long. It's a short nap, a blink of an eye to a student taking a stressful test, a fast shower. And an eternity to someone in the middle of a shooting. But what if there was someone in the crowd who had a weapon on them? What if there was a good guy in the crowd who was willing to take a stand and disable the shooter, quite like in the Sutherland Springs, Texas shooting?

You say you don't want civilians to have the ability to have guns.

But the first thing you do when someone scary pulls one out is pray for a good guy with a gun to get there fast. They'd be there a heck of a lot faster if they were there with you, looking as inconspicuous as you: just a civilian with a good aim and a brave heart.

The Second Amendment exists for one reason and one reason alone: to protect the right Americans have to keep and bear arms of all kinds forevermore. Once we take that away, there's nothing in the way of the rest of our rights being ripped out from underneath us.