If there is one topic that is always on the top of our country’s list of concerns it is the prospect of restricting or enhancing gun control laws. Guaranteed to spark a debate the moment two people of opposing opinions breach the topic, gun control rests along the same platform as abortion and other hot button topics that our government simply can’t seem to solve without intense opposition rising up to protest. While I understand the fear that most people have regarding weapons, there is almost always a sort of trepidation that follows something misunderstood in current political news.
Let us begin at the beginning, which for this argument shall be the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution. The most recent edition of the amendment reads as follows: “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.” Many people find this to be a rather cut and dry statement: every citizen has the right to own guns. While some resistance has been made as to who the militia actually is, it cannot be denied that a militia is not comprised of sanctioned military officials. It refers to the citizens, the people of the country, to everyone who wishes to own a weapon to defend themselves.
Another point to consider is that creating a complex network of restrictions on gun purchase and possession won’t work. In fact, this process will fail to work on any product the populous feels it deserves a right to. For the most notable example, reference the prohibition of the 1920’s. Alcohol was outlawed, due to the fact that many people believed it was the source of America’s greatest problems. Yet, instead of vanishing from the country in entirety, alcoholic beverages became the new hot commodity of the era. Criminals created illegal moonshine operations, knowing that people would be willing to pay big bucks to get what they wanted. Gun control is no different, and if the US government continues to deny its people access to weapons, we may see an even worse backlash than the Temperance movement.
Finally, while it cannot be denied that guns have the capability of causing harm to those who do not deserve it, this entirely overlooks the opposite prospect. Wanting to own a gun for the purposes of self-defense is not a crime, it is a right. Every living person is entitled to defending themselves and their loved ones, but how can that be done without the appropriate means? Guns will not simply go away, which means if they become outlawed the only people getting a hold of automatic weapons will be criminals. This would invariably lead to a world of heavily armed criminals and citizens that have no means of protecting their lives. All things considered, does that seem like the best possible resolution?