Introduction

You know, I never thought I would ever say this, but for once, I really wish that I had writer's block. I wish that I was at a loss for what to write about. I wish that the news would be boring again so that I would have to actually struggle to think of an article topic.

But the heartbreaking fact is that it isn't. So here we are.

The recent horrific events that transpired in Las Vegas five days ago have once again launched our country into the heated debate of gun control, and the potential re-writing of current gun laws. On the surface, the issue is understandably vexing. Do we respond to the ever-increasing level of mass shootings in our nation or do we preserve the resounding level of freedom that the U.S. has maintained for so long?

Here's my take on the matter, summed up in a recent Facebook debate.

Two days ago, I shared a video that seemed to succinctly encapsulate the issue--the nature of firearms have drastically changed since 1789, the year when the Second Amendment was first written. I've included it here, along with the original wording of my post and the exact wording of the First and Second Amendments. You'll need this to properly understand the context of this debate.

To quote Jennifer Ballinger:

“Additional thought—of course this won't be perfect. Of course there will be assault weapons that slip through the cracks, mental illness that goes unrecognized until a disaster occurs, criminals who will happily procure weapons through illegal means. But I am happy to take ‘better’ if I can't get ‘perfect.’ I won't settle for doing nothing at all.”

https://www.facebook.com/TheOther98/videos/1358714637472844/

Amendment I:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Amendment II:

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.

The Debate

Now that I've properly prefaced things, I can dive into the actual debate. After posting the video above and including the original text, the reply from one of my more conservative friends was almost immediate.

Conservative Friend: ...And the first amendment only applies to printing presses... = not a good argument

Me: While the basic principle of what you're suggesting is true, there is a categorical difference between the effect of a more highly advanced form of weaponry and that of a more highly advanced form of news media.

CF: Not if you look at the reasons for the bill of rights. Both these amendments are to protect people from government tyranny. Some would say ideas are more powerful than weapons. If/when the media/speech is controlled there are powerful movements (most often extremely bad ones). Look at any dictatorship in history. (Centralized communications, strict control of what is taught to the children of those countries) Besides if you look at some of the "allowances" the government made in the time these rights were written down you would see that there were cannons "allowed" on merchant ships. It wasn't just about muskets. It was about rights to self defense from enemies both foreign and domestic....Hence the "not a good argument". So find another.

Me: First of all, I am well aware of the potentially damaging power of words. I’m an English teacher—I’ve devoted my life to the study of the power of the written and spoken word, along with how incredibly destructive both of them can be. When it comes down to it, I wholeheartedly agree with you that words and ideas can change and/or hurt the world far more than weapons can.

However, in the specific case of the Las Vegas shooting, it was not an evolved form of the colonial-era printing press that massacred 58 people and injured hundreds more. It was the evolved form of the colonial-era flintlock rifle. This is an undeniable fact. In this case, it was not an injurious distortion or limitation of information to the public that killed dozens and injured hundreds, but rather several dozen legally-obtained semi-automatic rifles that Stephen Paddock legally modified with bump-fire stocks to allow them to fire at nearly a fully-automatic rate.

And this is exactly my point. This is exactly the problem. Paddock did it all legally. No one questioned why a single man would need to purchase over 33 firearms, most of them rifles, within the span of a year. Not a single legal check was in place to determine why a single man needed such a veritable arsenal of firepower. Even more disturbing is the fact that it is so legally easy to modify semi-automatics to fire at a near fully-automatic rate. I utterly fail to see why any untrained civilian could/should be entrusted with that potential level of destructive firepower.

If our nation’s status was still as precarious as it was following the War for Independence, I would whole-heartedly agree that civilians should arm themselves as well as they possibly can. If I were an American citizen in 1789, living in one of thirteen loosely-linked states with no coast guard to protect my shores from foreign invaders, no organized police force to instill domestic peace, and only the demobilized leftovers of the patriot army from the Revolutionary War (who were only paid for their service years after the war ended) to potentially enforce government law and keep the peace, I would absolutely train with a firearm and make sure that my household was well-protected. However—this is simply no longer the case. The state of our nation has changed. Those cannons that were allowed on merchant ships were put there because at the time, literal piracy was still a constant, lethal threat—far greater than it is today, at least in areas close to American shores.

And if there is one area where I fully support the right for civilians to arm themselves, it is in the interest of self-defense. A CCW is, for many, vital and necessary for staying safe on a daily basis. But beyond that and allowances made for hunting rifles, I am deeply sorry--I cannot possibly fathom why civilians need to wield any level of weaponry that extends beyond those requirements. Semi-automatics and any kind of mods that allow them to fire at higher rates have to be strictly reserved for military use only.

Conclusion

I truly don't know how to express my views on the matter any plainer than this. If you see a flaw in my logic, I always welcome direct messages! In the meantime, stay safe, friends and readers. Godspeed.

P.S.-- Here's the article where I accessed the majority of my information.

"Why Stephen Paddock's Gun Purchases Didn't Raise Red Flags"