Guns Have Never Been Illegal, But, Somehow, Marriage For All Once Was

Guns Have Never Been Illegal, But, Somehow, Marriage For All Once Was

Guns aren't illegal. They have never been. But love was up until a few shorts year ago.

Gun control. These are two words that send shivers down the spine of every single gun-toting southerner. If it's not a feeling of fear of guns being confiscated then it's a sense of explosive anger. The overall feeling is that owning guns is a right that every American possesses, however, the rights and emotions of citizens were not taken into account when Americans just wanted to marry the person that they loved. The emotional arguments were originally rejected when the fight for marriage first began. These were just people using emotions instead of fact.

However, in this entire debate for guns, is incredibly evident that Americans are extremely attached to their firearms.

The circle debate that "guns don't kill people, people kill people." Has been presented time and time again. I find this to be a redundant argument that really solves nothing at all. The argument chases it's own theoretical tail time and time again as it doesn't really matter who is behind the problem as long as there is a definite understanding that there is a problem.

Kids born specifically in the late 90's have grown up with the horror stories of school shootings. Time after time it has happened and time after time action has not been taken. Many solutions have been offered to this problem, but all seem to be sidestepping the actual issue.

The issue, in reality, is guns. Guns are the problem.

Do people kill people? Yes. Yes, they do. But guns are one of the quickest form of access to mass destruction that almost every American citizen of age (and even underage) can have quick access to and are capable of purchasing.

The argument has been posed that there will be other ways of causing violence and destruction. This statement is one that I believe to be true, however, at the present time killing is much too easy. Let the killers get creative. Killing the same amount of people with a knife of shank or any sort of handmade weapon of destruction is a thousand times harder than the automatic weapons we so readily put in the hands of killers.

We are currently protecting our guns instead of our children. We value what we deem a right as opposed to the protection of some of our most vulnerable groups of people. We don't want our government taking away rights. We want limited government. However, such things didn't seem applicable when it came to marriage equality and two consenting adults going into their committed lives with one another. This wasn't deemed applicable when women were forced to birth children and told what the restrictions were on the uterus within their body.

It seems to me that we as Americans are fine with rights being taken away as long as they aren't their own.

My guns are my rights but the same shouldn't go for marriage or your body. The logic makes me cringe. The fact that a weapon of mass destruction that is used for the mass killing of young people is held as a more valuable right than a woman's choice or the love of two adults wanting to join in matrimony shows a fault in our society as Americans.

Guns aren't illegal. They have never been. But love was up until a few shorts year ago. Marriage was illegal, but our weapons aren't. A woman's right to choose is under fire even today, but we can all rest easy knowing we'll have our guns at night.

The thought that we need to have more guns in order to protect ourselves from the people who do have them is yet another argument that chases its own tail. It's like instead of putting out the fire or taking away the resources to make the fire, we decide to beat the fire with more fire.

The only thing that will come of it is a bigger, more destruction flame. It's much past time we put that flame out.

Cover Image Credit: Pexels

Popular Right Now

I Am A College Student, And I Think Free Tuition Is Unfair To Everyone Who's Already Paid For It

Stop expecting others to pay for you.


I attend Fordham University, a private university in the Bronx.

I commute to school because I can't afford to take out more loans than I already do.

Granted, I've received scholarships because of my grades, but they don't cover my whole tuition. I am nineteen years old and I have already amassed the debt of a 40-year-old. I work part-time and the money I make covers the bills I have to pay. I come from a middle-class family, but my dad can't afford to pay off my college loans.

I'm not complaining because I want my dad to pay my loans off for me; rather I am complaining because while my dad can't pay my loans off (which, believe me, he wants too), he's about to start paying off someone else's.

During the election, Bernie frequently advocated for free college.

Now, if he knew enough about economics he would know it simply isn't feasible. Luckily for him, he is seeing his plan enacted by Cuomo in NY. Cuomo has just announced that in NY, state public college will be free.

Before we go any further, it's important to understand what 'free' means.

Nothing is free; every single government program is paid for by the taxpayers. If you don't make enough to have to pay taxes, then something like this doesn't bother you. If you live off welfare and don't pay taxes, then something like this doesn't bother you. When someone offers someone something free, it's easy to take it, like it, and advocate for it, simply because you are not the one paying for it.

Cuomo's free college plan will cost $163,000,000 in the first year (Did that take your breath away too?). Now, in order to pay for this, NY state will increase their spending on higher education to cover these costs. Putting two and two together, if the state decides to raise their budget, they need money. If they need money they look to the taxpayers. The taxpayers are now forced to foot the bill for this program.

I think education is extremely important and useful.

However, my feelings on the importance of education does not mean that I think it should be free. Is college expensive? Yes -- but more so for private universities. Public universities like SUNY Cortland cost around $6,470 per year for in-state residents. That is still significantly less than one of my loans for one semester.

I've been told that maybe I shouldn't have picked a private university, but like I said, I believe education is important. I want to take advantage of the education this country offers, and so I am going to choose the best university I could, which is how I ended up at Fordham. I am not knocking public universities, they are fine institutions, they are just not for me.

My problems with this new legislation lie in the following: Nowhere are there any provisions that force the student receiving aid to have a part-time job.

I work part-time, my sister works part-time, and plenty of my friends work part-time. Working and going to school is stressful, but I do it because I need money. I need money to pay my loans off and buy my textbooks, among other things. The reason I need money is because my parents can't afford to pay off my loans and textbooks as well as both of my sisters'. There is absolutely no reason why every student who will be receiving aid is not forced to have a part-time job, whether it be working in the school library or waitressing.

We are setting up these young adults up for failure, allowing them to think someone else will always be there to foot their bills. It's ridiculous. What bothers me the most, though, is that my dad has to pay for this. Not only my dad, but plenty of senior citizens who don't even have kids, among everyone else.

The cost of living is only going up, yet paychecks rarely do the same. Further taxation is not a solution. The point of free college is to help young adults join the workforce and better our economy; however, people my parents' age are also needed to help better our economy. How are they supposed to do so when they can't spend their money because they are too busy paying taxes?

Free college is not free, the same way free healthcare isn't free.

There is only so much more the taxpayers can take. So to all the students about to get free college: get a part-time job, take personal responsibility, and take out a loan — just like the rest of us do. The world isn't going to coddle you much longer, so start acting like an adult.

Cover Image Credit:

Related Content

Connect with a generation
of new voices.

We are students, thinkers, influencers, and communities sharing our ideas with the world. Join our platform to create and discover content that actually matters to you.

Learn more Start Creating

Yes, I'm A Feminist, No I Don't Hate All Men

Because if we want to promote equality, why fight that with mass hating a particular gender?


I'd like to consider myself a feminist.

I am all for equal opportunity, equal pay, and equal rights. I believe that women should be granted the equal opportunities that males do, be free of harassment, not be scared to exist literally just because of their gender, have reproductive rights, be taken seriously when we think something is medically wrong with us, and be treated with the same respect and dignity as men do. Just because I believe all these things, however, doesn't mean I automatically hate men.

I've seen a big increase in trends that, just for men existing, people will post about how "men ain't shit," or how men ultimately suck just because of their gender. When reflecting upon this, however, I've come to realize isn't this a step in the wrong direction?

Obviously, I can't continue on until I say this: there is, in fact, times where men can really suck. White men in positions of power abusing that, men who are rapists, men who meddle in women's reproductive rights, abusers, men who think it's okay and even funny to harass others, etc. But it all comes down to this: just because you're a man doesn't mean I automatically hate you, and I don't think others should.

Sure, as mentioned above, there are garbage humans who abuse their positions of power as men in order to get what they want. THOSE are the people I hate, not others for existing just because they are men. When in reality, there are a lot of good men who recognize their positions of power and try and make up for it by advocating for those in need of advocacy, whether they are women or even minorities. There are men who are decent human beings, whether that is being nice to others, volunteering in their community, caring for those around them, or even men who are also feminists.

I think my argument has been made pretty clear: I do not and will not hate you just because you are a man. No one gets to choose whichever gender they are, so why should I hate a group of people for just being born male? If I want to promote equality as a feminist, why should I then believe that I am better because I am female? Why should I say I believe in equal treatment between genders, yet automatically hate you because you're a man?

So yes, some men truly, "ain't shit." I believe these men, however, are not good human beings. Men aren't terrible just because they are men, and I ultimately wish that those promoting total equality would realize that we cannot strive towards equal treatment, opportunities, and pay if we continue clumping one group together under the impression of, "they're men, they're terrible."


Related Content

Facebook Comments