_JPG.jpg)
“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 Constitution of United States of America. 2nd Amendment)
The escalation of the topic:
The conversation over the Second Amendment has been a ‘hot-button’ topic throughout American history. The topic is so potent that many individuals base their votes on what a candidates’ stance on gun control is. Though, especially within the past decade, the debate over gun control and the Second Amendment has become omnipresent and has conquered political debate; I speculate that the reason that this issue has become so salient is because of the recent mass-shootings—with schools shooting being the main impetus—and the rise of the internet, social media.
Like I just stated, the conundrum that is the gun debate has enveloped America; If you have a social media account or watch the national news, the ubiquity of the gun debate is evident. Though I must admit because of the liberal nature of social media, the debate seems to be one-sided. For most, the default position is the anti-gun or pro-regulation stance; a majority of these individual are not exposed to arguments from the opposition. They exist within an echo-chamber: a bubble with like-minded persons.
The arguments for guns:
The Constitutional purpose:
Though the interpretation of the Second Amendment is a point of contention, the canonical belief (Washington D.C. v Heller decision) is that the constitution affords us “the right to bear arms” (i.e. weapons). Just like free speech, the founding fathers believed this right was tantamount. They understood and knew the importance of citizen’s ability to form militias and to protect themselves and their property.
Many pro-gun proponents would argue that the Second amendment is a deterrent; the right to bear arms protects our other rights. The original intent of the amendment was to afford citizens with the uninfringed ability to fight off an autocratic government. In theory, if citizens did not possess any weapons--or any adequate means of defense--what would stop the government from suppressing the population? We would be at the mercy of our own government, hoping for the reprieve of a foreign nation.
This is not just a hypothetical situation, there is historical precedence. For example, the American Revolution was predicated on colonist’s ability to own guns and form local militias. If the British empire had forbid gun ownership, there is little chance the American Revolution would have flourished. Also, confiscation and strict gun laws have, historically, made it easier for despots to accumulate power; it’s easier to rise to and maintain power if the angry mobs can’t shoot at you.
Also, the deterrent aspect does not just apply to our overarching government. It also applies to governments aboard. Foreign nations will be apprehensive about invading a country that owns half of all the worlds guns (e.g. the Japanese’ plan to invade mainland America): “…the prince who has more to fear from the people than from foreigners ought to build fortresses [metaphorical fortresses, i.e. like disarment], but he who has more to fear from foreigners than from the people ought to leave them alone.” (Niccolo Machiavelli. The Prince).
Defense:
Another argument that pro-gun proponents make for the necessity of guns is the need for self-defense and/or protection. Guns are, in effect, the best tools for defending yourself, your family, and your personal property. If the original intention of our Second Amendment right was to deter a tyrannical government, then the right is enough to deter an individual from engaging in crime. I would imagine a pro-gun advocate would argue that the small portion of corrupt gun owners—and those who don’t own a gun legally—should not ruin the constitutional right for all Americans; just like the small fraction of immigrants who are genuine criminals should not ruin it for the immigrants who come in good faith.
(https://www.pinterest.com/pin/350225308502877554/)
It is easy to negatively view guns when you are comfortably middle-class—or wealthy--and relatively always safe. Though, it not easy to look at guns as useless weapons that only “rednecks” care about when you live in a dangerous, low socioeconomic, community; these individuals do not have the luxury of walking around town feeling safe and insulated from crime. Owning a gun for self-protection is more practical and vital when you are a young mother living in a crime-ridden metropolitan city than a mother living in an affluent suburb.
Also, you can make the case that since most police officers are, now, viewed with contempt—to a degree--why would you want the police force to be the only persons with guns? I do acknowledge that guns in a police-related encounter may inadvertently create a worst situation, but a situation where a corrupt police officer does not fear his or her compatriot may result in he or she acting without scruple.
Conclusion:
First, I want to state that I do not claim to be an expert in any subject or field, especially not in the gun controversy. Though, the conclusion and/or resolution of the gun debates affects me too. I feel it is pertinent for every citizen to participate, that is the point of a debate, after all.