By Paul Menke
“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 Second Amendment of the United States Constitution.
With the recent events of the Parkland school shooting, it is easy to have a knee-jerk reaction to ban all guns, and it is easy to forget the sheer importance of the Second Amendment and the plethora of positive effects it has on American society.
The Second Amendment is perhaps the most important amendment the Founding Fathers added to the Constitution. The Second Amendment allows citizens of legal age (and in most states with proper permission and licensing) to defend themselves, their property, their family, and their neighbors from criminals. Hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of Americans rely on hunting to put food on their table, and/or rely on hunting as an occupation to put money in the bank. Why do people need firearms? Why not? It’s a citizen’s right. Since when did an American citizen need a reason to exercise our constitutional rights?
“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 Second Amendment of the United States Constitution.
With the recent events of the Parkland school shooting, it is easy to have a knee-jerk reaction to ban all guns, and it is easy to forget the sheer importance of the Second Amendment and the plethora of positive effects it has on American society.
The Second Amendment is perhaps the most important amendment the Founding Fathers added to the Constitution. The Second Amendment allows citizens of legal age (and in most states with proper permission and licensing) to defend themselves, their property, their family, and their neighbors from criminals. Hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of Americans rely on hunting to put food on their table, and/or rely on hunting as an occupation to put money in the bank. Why do people need firearms? Why not? It’s a citizen’s right. Since when did an American citizen need a reason to exercise our constitutional rights?
The Second Amendment also protects against government tyranny, and history has proven the worth of the right to bear arms, and that it works. When a government disarms its citizens, it can operate unchecked. The Nazi party did this with Germany, and no citizen was able to defend themselves from being massacred by the Nazis during the Holocaust.
Many people wish to create new, stricter gun laws and make it harder for law abiding citizens to purchase firearms. This philosophy looks great on paper: “Let’s ban guns, so gun-related crimes will decrease.” However, stricter gun regulations and bans have never been proven to work. Detroit is a sparkling example of how “well” gun control works. According to the FBI, Detroit has some of the strictest gun laws in the country - and has the highest violent crime rate in the United States.
Another huge flaw in gun control is that criminals - by definition - break the law. Laws do not matter to criminals - laws ban drugs such as cocaine, heroin, and meth, but people still do drugs. Murder is illegal - yet people still murder, but not just with firearms, people kill other people with knives, ropes, lead pipes, wrenches—with practically anything that can be used as an effective tool for murder. Then will we ban kitchen knives? Will we ban wrenches? There are thousands upon thousands of more automobile related deaths per year than gun-related deaths, so should we ban cars? Should we ban cell phones, since they are a tool that distracts drivers, leading to more deaths? When will it end?
The left also seeks to punish gun manufacturers and hold the companies responsible for the consumer’s misuse. Using this logic, we should punish Chevrolet, Ford, and the other automobile manufacturers for stupid, drunk, and distracted drivers. Furthermore, should we punish Apple and Samsung for providing the people with a tool to distract themselves while driving, while crossing the street, and costing children’s lives in the process? Should we ban laundry detergent because people are stupid enough to try and eat Tide Pods? Which in many cases, keep in mind, are also the same people wanting YOU to pay for THEIR healthcare. The case against gun manufacturers is nothing but nonsense.
Many of the most visible spokespeople for anti-Second Amendment, gun control supporters are celebrities. True, the celebrities do not have a special need for a firearm because they have armed security guards. Hillary Clinton is a strong advocate for gun control, but if she truly believed in what she was saying, she would have disarmed her security guards. We protect our politicians, government buildings, athletes, courts, factories, and celebrities with guns, but we protect our schools with “gun free zones”? This policy makes no sense.
Why have guns when we have the police? Well then, why have fire extinguishers because we have firefighters? Law abiding gun owners save many more lives than when people wait for a police response. According to a study performed by Gary Kleck, a criminology professor at Florida State University, over 2.5 million Americans per year use their privately owned firearms to prevent and defend against criminal activity. There would not be as much of a need for firearms if there was no violence in the world, but that is far from the case; there will always be violence in the world. Humanity has proven this true time and time again. Imagine how many rapes and sexual assaults women could stop if they were armed.
Compare Dr. Kleck’s 2.5 million Americans who defend themselves against criminal activity to the 2015 statistic of 13,286 people who were killed by a person with a firearm, and the 28,819 people that were injured by people using a firearm. This a great reinforcement of the saying “a few bad apples spoil the bunch.” These numbers are awful, and while gun violence is a growing problem in the United States, the problem is not the firearm. The problem is the people, and will always be the people that commit these despicable acts. Gun control, which restricts the rights of law abiding citizens, is not and never will be the proper, effective solution. Take for example the recent school shooting attempt in Maryland, a state that has strict gun laws. A law-abiding, responsible gun owner/user stopped someone evil from killing anyone, protecting the students’ lives. That attempted shooter A, wasn’t old enough to legally purchase a firearm, and B, used a pistol, not an AR-15.
Some enacted gun control laws have been deemed unconstitutional. In Seattle, Washington, the lawmakers proposed and enacted their form of an indirect, constitutional gun control/gun law by proposing a $25 tax on every firearm purchase and up to a 5 cent tax per round of ammunition. This law was enacted on January 1, 2016. In half a year, that new law had an extremely negative effect on crime; shots-fired reports were up 13 percent, people injured in shootings were up 37 percent, and gun-related deaths doubled, while firearm purchases went down 60 percent, according to the Seattle Police Department. Discouraging (and making it harder to exercise) responsible gun ownership is the worst thing lawmakers can do to stunt gun violence in America.
There are some constitutional and logical regulations, such as if you are mentally ill or insane, there is no chance of being able to purchase a firearm legally, and you also cannot legally obtain a firearm if you have been dishonorably discharged from the military. These two laws are very sensible to gun owners and lobbyists like the National Rifle Association who believe in responsible gun ownership.
A huge argument the left has to push their gun-control agenda is that “when the Founding Fathers created this country, they never knew the extent of how guns would evolve.” However, that argument is weak. The founding fathers could not “see the future” but they knew that people would try to disarm the populace. They knew politicians did not and do not like people being armed. They knew the great benefits of responsible citizens having the ability to obtain and use firearms. When the Founding Fathers sat down to create the Bill of Rights, they sat down and thought of ten rights that they did not have in England and its empire, and the Second Amendment was the second right they agreed upon. The Founding Fathers were geniuses for foreseeing the importance of the Second Amendment.
Many liberals do not know and/or recognize the sheer necessity for firearms in American society—such as needs of food, protection, and security—but they think they can tell you what rights you do and do not have. An armed society is a safe society. The Second Amendment, along with responsible gun owners, saves human lives. If the government can take away your Second Amendment right; what other rights can the government take away from you? In 1774, the British outlawed the import and export of firearms in its Empire. In 1775, the British empire attempted the confiscation of firearms from its people. In 1776, there was the American Revolution. Before the Civil War, states were making anti-gun laws with racist intentions - to keep slaves from owning guns.
The Second Amendment must be protected. Without it, countless lives will be in danger and at the mercy of the government.
Many people wish to create new, stricter gun laws and make it harder for law abiding citizens to purchase firearms. This philosophy looks great on paper: “Let’s ban guns, so gun-related crimes will decrease.” However, stricter gun regulations and bans have never been proven to work. Detroit is a sparkling example of how “well” gun control works. According to the FBI, Detroit has some of the strictest gun laws in the country - and has the highest violent crime rate in the United States.
Another huge flaw in gun control is that criminals - by definition - break the law. Laws do not matter to criminals - laws ban drugs such as cocaine, heroin, and meth, but people still do drugs. Murder is illegal - yet people still murder, but not just with firearms, people kill other people with knives, ropes, lead pipes, wrenches—with practically anything that can be used as an effective tool for murder. Then will we ban kitchen knives? Will we ban wrenches? There are thousands upon thousands of more automobile related deaths per year than gun-related deaths, so should we ban cars? Should we ban cell phones, since they are a tool that distracts drivers, leading to more deaths? When will it end?
The left also seeks to punish gun manufacturers and hold the companies responsible for the consumer’s misuse. Using this logic, we should punish Chevrolet, Ford, and the other automobile manufacturers for stupid, drunk, and distracted drivers. Furthermore, should we punish Apple and Samsung for providing the people with a tool to distract themselves while driving, while crossing the street, and costing children’s lives in the process? Should we ban laundry detergent because people are stupid enough to try and eat Tide Pods? Which in many cases, keep in mind, are also the same people wanting YOU to pay for THEIR healthcare. The case against gun manufacturers is nothing but nonsense.
Many of the most visible spokespeople for anti-Second Amendment, gun control supporters are celebrities. True, the celebrities do not have a special need for a firearm because they have armed security guards. Hillary Clinton is a strong advocate for gun control, but if she truly believed in what she was saying, she would have disarmed her security guards. We protect our politicians, government buildings, athletes, courts, factories, and celebrities with guns, but we protect our schools with “gun free zones”? This policy makes no sense.
Why have guns when we have the police? Well then, why have fire extinguishers because we have firefighters? Law abiding gun owners save many more lives than when people wait for a police response. According to a study performed by Gary Kleck, a criminology professor at Florida State University, over 2.5 million Americans per year use their privately owned firearms to prevent and defend against criminal activity. There would not be as much of a need for firearms if there was no violence in the world, but that is far from the case; there will always be violence in the world. Humanity has proven this true time and time again. Imagine how many rapes and sexual assaults women could stop if they were armed.
Compare Dr. Kleck’s 2.5 million Americans who defend themselves against criminal activity to the 2015 statistic of 13,286 people who were killed by a person with a firearm, and the 28,819 people that were injured by people using a firearm. This a great reinforcement of the saying “a few bad apples spoil the bunch.” These numbers are awful, and while gun violence is a growing problem in the United States, the problem is not the firearm. The problem is the people, and will always be the people that commit these despicable acts. Gun control, which restricts the rights of law abiding citizens, is not and never will be the proper, effective solution. Take for example the recent school shooting attempt in Maryland, a state that has strict gun laws. A law-abiding, responsible gun owner/user stopped someone evil from killing anyone, protecting the students’ lives. That attempted shooter A, wasn’t old enough to legally purchase a firearm, and B, used a pistol, not an AR-15.
Some enacted gun control laws have been deemed unconstitutional. In Seattle, Washington, the lawmakers proposed and enacted their form of an indirect, constitutional gun control/gun law by proposing a $25 tax on every firearm purchase and up to a 5 cent tax per round of ammunition. This law was enacted on January 1, 2016. In half a year, that new law had an extremely negative effect on crime; shots-fired reports were up 13 percent, people injured in shootings were up 37 percent, and gun-related deaths doubled, while firearm purchases went down 60 percent, according to the Seattle Police Department. Discouraging (and making it harder to exercise) responsible gun ownership is the worst thing lawmakers can do to stunt gun violence in America.
There are some constitutional and logical regulations, such as if you are mentally ill or insane, there is no chance of being able to purchase a firearm legally, and you also cannot legally obtain a firearm if you have been dishonorably discharged from the military. These two laws are very sensible to gun owners and lobbyists like the National Rifle Association who believe in responsible gun ownership.
A huge argument the left has to push their gun-control agenda is that “when the Founding Fathers created this country, they never knew the extent of how guns would evolve.” However, that argument is weak. The founding fathers could not “see the future” but they knew that people would try to disarm the populace. They knew politicians did not and do not like people being armed. They knew the great benefits of responsible citizens having the ability to obtain and use firearms. When the Founding Fathers sat down to create the Bill of Rights, they sat down and thought of ten rights that they did not have in England and its empire, and the Second Amendment was the second right they agreed upon. The Founding Fathers were geniuses for foreseeing the importance of the Second Amendment.
Many liberals do not know and/or recognize the sheer necessity for firearms in American society—such as needs of food, protection, and security—but they think they can tell you what rights you do and do not have. An armed society is a safe society. The Second Amendment, along with responsible gun owners, saves human lives. If the government can take away your Second Amendment right; what other rights can the government take away from you? In 1774, the British outlawed the import and export of firearms in its Empire. In 1775, the British empire attempted the confiscation of firearms from its people. In 1776, there was the American Revolution. Before the Civil War, states were making anti-gun laws with racist intentions - to keep slaves from owning guns.
The Second Amendment must be protected. Without it, countless lives will be in danger and at the mercy of the government.