The Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, which 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,” has been heavily discussed in every newspaper and political setting since the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting. The debate surrounding gun control is decades in the making and has culminated in President Obama’s recent Congressional call to action with a series of proposals including a ban on assault weapons, an increase in background checks, restrictions in ammunition magazine size, school safety plans and mental health programs.

Gun enthusiasts see these propositions as an unnecessary threat to their constitutional right. Yet, if gun control weren’t an issue then restrictions wouldn’t be considered. I’m not a conspiracy theorist, I don’t believe in a government that desires to render its people weak and protection-less, rather government was designed to protect its people. Therefore, the notion of gun rights and gun control must be deliberated and updated to contemporary standards.

Why the hesitance to participate in a simple background check or registration of the weapon if a gun possessor is a law-abiding citizen? There is no Executive bill in Congress attempting to eliminate the right to bear arms. President Obama is not trying to eradicate your idea of self-defense, despite what many Conservatives believe to be the case. In fact, the President had no interest in the issue of gun control until it was thrust upon him by a sincerely tragic circumstance. An event intensified by the act of carrying weapons, and one that would not have been possible without a gun.

Would a limitation on ammunition be that much of a hindrance? How many bullets does it take to shoot a deer? How about a human, or rather a trespasser, if we’re speaking of personal defense? I suppose the answer is one, if the “hunter” is in fact trained in the skill of firing a weapon. Yet, how many gun owners have the qualifications to fire a round? Rhetorical question,considering a collection of this information, nor the requirement to acquire such skill, does not exist. I’ve joked, in passing, if bullets were purchased at $1,000 a pop then there would be far less gun-related deaths. I mean, how much do you have to hate someone to put $5,000 into their body? I suppose that sort of thinking is somewhat morbid, yet there’s a truth to the thought.

Regardless of how gun restriction is handled, I think everyone must agree with school safety logistics that will prevent the type of unnecessary violence that has occurred across the U.S. on a massive scale since the Columbine shootings. This leads into the mental health programs that could reveal the type of destructive thoughts in at-risk individuals, who without help, despite the warning signs, will continue to
wreak havoc on society.

I’ll leave you with these last thoughts, a recently spotted meme that emphasizes the most asinine concept of gun rights, “if guns don’t kill people, people kill people, does that mean that toasters don’t toast toast, toast toast toast.” Think it out. Come to the rational conclusion that restrictions must be applied for the safety of every citizen.