It’s Time.
With the events of the Las Vegas shooting still fresh in media coverage, the gun control vs gun “rights” debate has essentially repeated the same back and forth arguments that always show up right after a horrific mass shooting. However, this instance, the worst mass shooting in modern American history (modern, because estimate body counts of past slaughters of further dozens of Native Americans and African Americans in the Gilded Age may outnumber the ‘records’ set today), the one that will cause “Las Vegas” to forever be mentioned in the same way that “Sandy Hook,” or “Orlando” will. The constant media coverage that will cause the city’s name to go down in infamy is the same platform for the common participants in the gun control discourse community. Advocates for the Second Amendment, among other things, argue that the preservation of individual rights is the number one priority in the emotional aftermath of situations like these.
Gun ownership should by no means be illegal, but the default, constitutionally upheld right of citizens to own them should not exist in a sane society. I understand the rabid disagreements from the right on attempts to restrict their so-called rights; the vicious conservative-majority Supreme Court ruled not too long ago that the Amendment’s wording “A well-regulated militia” does not, somehow, apply the regulated aspect of the amendment to individuals. Pretty much anyone with a heartbeat and an age of 18 and up can purchase a machine designed to kill, whereas visible, public militias have to be controlled. Interesting
The amendment is outdated, having been written in a time where the most elite infantryman could only average three to four shots per minute, whereas modern semiautomatic weapons can discharge a projectile three to four times per second! The Constitution was written 228 years ago. The need to own firearms to protect one’s property and one’s newborn nation from outside attack was prevalent in early America; however, the United States has emerged as the world’s only superpower for the past three decades. There are no outside threats, and our military is literally the most powerful military in the history of mankind. No sane nation would attack our’s in a way that conventional firearms, owned by civilians, could stop. Starting right now, consider granting people in the future nearly unlimited access to the unimaginable firearm technology in 228 years. That insane idea is what the Second Amendment advocates are fighting to defend.
It is a fact that America does not have a statistically greater concentration of violent crimes, it’s that violent crime in America is far more deadly, far more likely to result in the deaths of those involved. Unlike vehicle attacks, stabbings, and the like that occur in other modern nations, a bullet wound is much more likely to be fatal.
I propose that gun ownership, to any capacity, should be seen as a privilege, much like driving a car. Essentially, if you’re going to own and operate a weapon with such destructive capabilities, not only should the presumption be that you are legally and mentally not capable of doing so simply by being an adult of legal age, but proving that the purchaser is, in fact, capable of responsibly handling such weapons should be the sole responsibility of the aspiring gun owner to positively prove their case. This process should be done by including (but not limited to) means such as criminal background checks, mental and psychological health history, and the amount of previously (ideally-recorded) acquired firearms and ammunition.
Discussing the repeal of a Constitutional amendment held so fetishistic to conservatives and gun rights groups may seem impossible, but it is important to remember why an amendment can be repealed: absolute necessity. The constitution is a living, breathing document with a built-in method of editing itself. The governing document that creates a government for the people can also be amended by taking into consideration the dire straits that this country faces in these times.
