In America, one of the largest debates we are unable to resolve is that of gun control. As a country, we have seen multiple deaths and massacres at the hands of civilian-owned, military-grade weapons. People push for control over public access to weapons, but there is always the argument of the Second Amendment. Let's break down the arguments then, shall we?
In regards to the 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" according to Cornell University Law School. In modern translation, the Amendment is claiming that a well-regulated army or policing force, being necessary to protect the freedom and security of Americans, and the ability to keep and carry weapons, shall not be prohibited by the government because that freedom is a basic human right.
The first part of this sentence focuses on the people who would need access to weapons: an army or policing force. It is not the job of the civilian to protect all of society. Police Departments, Navies, Armies, etc. are all there to provide much-needed protection from external or internal threatening forces. If one were to make the argument of owning a weapon for protection, then there is one flaw with their logic: no one needs a military-grade weapon in their households. Large assault rifles and other weapons are openly displayed in homes and hidden way, but are still accessible. With the House of Representatives' recent repeal of the law limiting people diagnosed with mental illnesses from owning guns, people are slowly gaining easy access to military-grade weapons without the need to fight a military-grade army.
The next part emphasizes the ability to carry and use weapons. Notice how the Amendment uses the word weapons. Weapons, as in guns, swords, knives, slingshots, and virtually anything else that can cause harm. In fact, a weapon is defined as something used to injure, defeat, or destroy. This means that the American Girl doll sitting on your daughter's bed could be considered a weapon in a threatening situation. Gun control would not be limiting the means to defending oneself, but rather limiting the amount of damage that could be done. Club shootings, school shootings, accidental murders committed by children, and many other deaths would drop in quantities considering that most of these events would have easily been prevented with a thorough background check and proper storage of the guns.
The final part of the Amendment draws attention to the idea that owning a gun is part of the basic human right qualifying it for protection purposes. The same people who defend this idea are typically those who also believe that abortion is wrong. However, the argument is not much different. The argument with abortion is the idea that the child deserves the right to live and not be killed through the will of the mother. This being said, when the child is born into the world, we manage to put them in danger of being killed at school for the sake of protecting another human right: the right to bear arms. Every time that someone with unidentified homicidal tendencies is granted access to a gun, whether it be through purchasing one at a store or grabbing the case from underneath their parents' bed, society is granting them the power to take the life away from the child you fought for before he or she was born.
The concept of gun control seems to scare many people. Not many people are open to the idea of the government controlling any aspect of their lives, which is an understandable concern. But the concern for our future as a nation should be greater. People are constantly being put in danger and dying at the mercy of a gun that's only purpose is to harm and kill. The only way to fix our problem is by addressing it head-on and enforcing harsher rules and limitations.
