Gun control. You either love it or you hate it. There really is no in between.

And for some reason, it has become a popular topic for debates within every American community and also within the politics of this country… as if there is anything to debate about.

There should be no conversation involving gun control, anti gun activists, etc. that all allude to the notion that the government should limit citizen use of firearms…as if the government has any right to do so.

Do people these days even recognize this document?

There is no debate. There is no controversy.

The Second Amendment (found here) 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.”

That’s it. Conversation over. People are failing to realize and recognize the fact that the Constitution of the United States is not negotiable or simply a guideline.

The fact that we have influential political figures in positions of power manipulating people to believe these rights can be changed or reinterpreted is one of the scariest things to me about the state of this country.

Tell me. What are the various ways you could interpret the sentence: “The right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.”

The definition of infringe is stated by Merriam Webster as, “to wrongly limit or restrict (something, such as another person’s rights).”

It literally says in the Bill of Rights of the Constitution that no one, no matter who they are or what political position they hold can ever limit or restrict our right as citizens to keep, own, and bear arms. Period. No 'ifs', 'ands', or 'butts'. That’s it.

There is nothing to talk about, and there is nothing to debate about because if there is then that means our country has fallen so far from the vision our forefathers had for us and from the foundations they laid for us that we as a country are currently unrecognizable. We are not the United States of America. We are morphing into a country I am terrified of living in for many reasons extending beyond this topic. But if it has gone so far that our supposed leaders are trying to convince citizens that the Bill of Rights is negotiable and susceptible to change…who knows what comes next. Freedom of religion? Speech? Due process? Excessive punishment? If anyone can change one of the Bill of Rights, what stops them from proceeding on to all of the others?

What’s ironic about it all to me is that our forefathers created this very amendment so that the citizens could protect themselves from the government and to keep the government from becoming too powerful. And now our government is beginning to advocate the taking away of our guns in an effort to increase control over citizens and our every move. And many of us have become so brainwashed that they are starting to support the government in doing so.

The other irony in this topic is related to the people using guns for harm: the ones shooting up schools and movie theaters, the ones committing homicide in gang related activities, etc.

Do you think these people living in a subculture of violence and a life of crime have the slightest concern about the legality behind acquiring firearms? Do you think someone with the intent to kill dozens of people cares enough to follow the careful procedures of the law to obtaining a gun legally? More importantly…do you think if they have the intent to do harm they will be prevented from doing so because guns are now illegal?

I haven’t lost all faith in humanity but I am getting closer and closer every time I turn on the TV.

The fact of the matter is that there are people who have the intent to do harm and they will do so by any means legal or not.

They will break into my home illegally and point a gun at me illegally and because of this “proposed legislation”…I will stand there defenseless. I will not have a gun in my home as I do now. I will not be able to defend myself. You know who will be defended? The person pointing a gun in my face. Why? Because he knows every law-abiding citizens’ home he goes into will have no firearms in it when he does. So he has unreciprocated power over any citizen in knowing they are unarmed. Thus, he probably is more confident in his thieving abilities and will probably commit more robberies because he knows no one can point a gun back at him.

Not to mention the unimaginable amount of crime that would develop from restriction on gun ownership. The black market for them would explode creating an even more dangerous situation.

If there were an armed person in Sandy Hook elementary school there may not have been as many deaths. If there were an armed person in the Aurora theatre, there may not have been as many deaths. The list goes on and on. And I find it so disappointing that I have to also say that people acquiring guns via a concealed weapons permit are not bad guys. They are men and women seeking protection for themselves, their families, and for the people around them who I’m sure would be very thankful for them in the event of a public shooting.

I went to a conference at the beginning of this year held by the FBI in Colombia, SC, and while sitting in a room full of police officers, FBI agents, attorneys, etc. I remember knowing for a fact that if anything were to happen that day in that building every single person in the room would be willing to stand up and defend everyone else, not personally knowing most of them. I have spent enough time around these types of professionals that none of them would have ducked under the table if a shooter walked in. They would take action with their own personal weapons, and not only was I comforted to be in the presence of these people but they inspired me. These people truly live their lives in danger every day just so they can protect others. And that’s what so many citizens are trying to help do by carrying a legal weapon with them. They want to be able to respond and protect people in the event of a public shooting, which unfortunately is not relatively uncommon. I just don’t understand why people are so against this.

Currently I am pursuing forensic psychology and am in my senior year at Clemson University. I am also interning this summer at the Sheriff’s Office in Greenville County. At a meeting the other day I listened to a conversation about proactive policing rather than reactive, aka prevention and interaction rather than enforcement and punishment. This made me think about how enforcing strict gun control is absolutely a reactive measure. “Take away guns and there will be no more serious crime.” As if guns are the reason for crime, spoons are the reason for obesity, and cars are the reason for drunk driving. In my studies of deviance, criminology, crime incentive, etc. I know for a fact that the only way to best prevent a certain type of crime is to find the root cause of the crime, not the weapon used.

In 2006, an Iranian-American who graduated from the University of North Carolina sought to “punish” the United States Government to, “avenge the deaths of Muslims worldwide.” He ended up renting and driving a SUV through the UNC campus in the attempt to run over and kill as many people as he could. He left a letter for the police to find in his apartment that stated:

“I am writing this letter to inform you of my reasons for premeditating and attempting to murder citizens and residents of the United States of America on Friday, March 3, 2006 in the city of Chapel Hill, North Carolina by running them over with my automobile and stabbing them with a knife if the opportunities are presented to me by Allah.

I did intend to use a handgun to murder the citizens and residents of Chapel Hill, North Carolina but the process of receiving a permit for a handgun in this city is highly restricted and out of my reach at the present, most likely due to my foreign nationality.”

This man obviously had the intent to do harm to many people, and because of the system already in place he was not able to legally obtain a firearm (apparently for good reason). Did he just snap his fingers and go “Darn. Oh well.” and move on? I mean he couldn’t buy a gun so wouldn’t that mean he couldn’t commit his crime? Absolutely not. He had the intent to do harm so he found another means of doing so. Making guns illegal will not stop crime. It will simply change it and raise it to a more dangerous level. Gun enforcement is reactive not proactive. I cannot state enough that making the ownership of guns illegal will not prevent crime. In all of my studies and experience with law enforcement I know this for a fact and I will have this conversation at length with anyone that wants to. I realize most of the citizens who are supporting gun control probably have never been near a weapon and don’t understand the concept of a gun. Another case of ignorance in supporting and speaking about something you know nothing about. We should not be talking about gun control but creating a conversation on how to best determine the root cause of why these criminals are choosing to commit these violent acts. Taking away their guns won't take away their intent. Mass shootings are a problem right now and I absolutely acknowledge that something needs to be done. But banning guns is not the answer.

We need guns now more than ever because the people going about it the legal way and who take the time to do so are the ones standing to uphold the law and defend themselves and their families. These are upholding citizens who if the US makes guns illegal will not obtain guns because they follow the law. It’s all of the people who don’t care about the law and who currently break it that will have the guns. So “gun control” is simply taking away every one else’s chances of defending themselves from these criminals.

Gun control is not protecting me. So who is it really protecting? And what are the true intentions of the political figures proposing it?