In the wake of mass shootings in Aurora, Colo. to the school massacre in Newtown, Conn., a vast percentage of Americans are ready for some form of gun control in the hopes that the violence performed by armed citizens can be lessened.
Many of those gun control advocates want an outright ban on assault weapons, while others propose a ban on extended magazines, limiting the amount of ammunition a single shooter can carry. Still others want heavy taxes levied against purchased guns and bullets, or even a repeal of the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, limiting the average American’s access to firearms in general.
The argument against gun control often falls back on the citizen’s guaranteed right to keep and bear arms, as a measure of protection, allowing the common man to defend his life, liberty and property.
As it reads in 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.”
This was not the original wording of the amendment, but the version that was finally ratified by both the Senate and the House of Representatives, and adopted Dec. 15, 1791, became part of the Bill Of Rights.
Some say that since the need for a militia, or citizen army, has gone away with the advent of the standing Army, average citizens have no need for firearms, unless the states decide to war with each other. Should Florida enter an armed conflict with Alabama, its residents should be able to take up their muskets and bayonets and defend the borders.
But, as recently as 2008, the U.S. Supreme Court handed down a decision establishing that this is not the actual interpretation of the amendment. In District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008), the Court ruled that the Second Amendment protects an individual’s right to possess a firearm, unconnected to service in a militia.
So what does this all mean?
Some would argue that as long as it is done legally, a person should be able to own any gun they so desire, for whatever purpose they desire, be it sport, hunting or defense. Others say that if access to assault weapons was limited, perhaps the Sandy Hook Elementary School would have 26 more students and teachers this spring.
Whatever side Americans fall on, a universal truth in the matter is that something must be done to require people to use their right to bear arms responsibly. Gun advocates like the National Rifle Association say the laws are already on the books and the key is to first enforce them before piling on new rules and regulations. But they staunchly oppose national registries of weapons and owners and some even oppose background checks and waiting periods.
It’s impossible to be a “legal gun owner,” though, while actively skirting the edges of the law.
Supporters of gun rights say it is the irresponsible gun users that commit the crimes and responsible owners shouldn’t be penalized when that group breaks the law. They also say even a Toyota, when used incorrectly and irresponsibly, can be deadly and no one wants to ban them.
The counter to that is simple, however. Responsible Toyota owners must register their cars, be licensed to use them, must insure them against improper use and pay yearly taxes for the right to own them, even if they are bought from private citizens over Craigslist. Not to mention no one has ever killed a group of moviegoers with a Land Cruiser they smuggled in hidden in their jacket.
Besides, whoever heard of a high caliber Assault Toyota with an extended magazine and night-vision scope?