Should We Ban the 2nd Ammendment?
Posted on June 30 2016
With the recent gun rights advocate shooting her two children over a divorce dispute with her husband, I feel that now is a good time to voice an opinion on the 2nd amendment. As a veteran of the United States Army, I hold a very interesting view when it comes to this topic. The way the political parties have framed the issue is a challenge though. Could both parties have merit in their arguments?
As I peer through the lens of the right, I understand that talking points. Hell, I own a pistol as well (who knows when the zombie apocalypse is coming), have a concealed handgun license and use the castle doctrine when I travel. I understand the "good guy" scenario. I agree with the sentiment that a person well trained and proficient in their weapon of choice could respond and neutralize a threat faster than law enforcement could get there; saving countless lives. I understand the "equalizer" argument as well. It balances the right of life when it comes to self defense. I understand the self defense argument and I agree with all of them. The government is trying to kill you or another civil war is coming are two train of thoughts I understand yet do not agree with. However, that doesnt mean I will treat you as an idiot. I also understand the part as it reads, "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." It important that we do acknowledge the sanctity of our Constitutional rights.
However, when I peer through the lens of the left, I can resonate with some of their points as well. "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State" is something that isn't talk about much. We have no highly trained militias and most of the states have militias equivalent to an adult NERF gun game. Most concealed handgun classes are a joke and do not grade real proficiency in a weapon. They have just enough training to be dangerous to the general public. How can we achieve the security of the state with such a Militia? I also can acknowledge what the Supreme court has ruled about the 2nd amendment. It "ruled that the federal government and the states could limit any weapon types not having a reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia" and "the right is not unlimited and does not prohibit all regulation of either firearms or similar devices." I acknowledge the NRA is a special interest group mainly concerned with the profit of the gun industry over people. I acknowledge that the sanctity of life is very important and that even if we can save one innocent life, why not try? (This works out in favor the right's argument) We have a serious mental health issue in this country. Whether it creates depression or mental instability vs radical extremism in the name of religions, it all stems from some sort of injustice, uneducated and social inequality present in our society.
I understand both sides and now all I want to do is put forth a way of understanding their basic point.
The right's basic point is self preservation at all costs. This means to defend ones life (even in the defense of others, one is defending their memory) against all threats, even if it means innocent people may die.
The left's basic talking point is the preservation of others through forfeiting their right to defend themself. Its a sacrifice one takes in order to hopefully achieve the right to life for all (I am not painting the left as the moral equivalent of true righteousness either).
The answer to self defense is the option to have more guns (I have read the paper that more guns leads to less crimes). So if that answers that question, does it work for the other viewpoint. Does more guns solve the mental health problem? I don't think it does. If that was true, then we'd allow patients in mental hospitals to own guns. Can we see the huge difference in viewpoints yet?
Its not that either side is more right or more wrong. That one is the better answer in all cases and allows for the greatest amount of liberty. Its both sides have two legitimate points. It just so happens the left's has become more prevalent as this country grows older. It's easy to see the erosion of rights if those rights had never been questioned to the extent they have been now.
All I am saying, is we can reach comprehensive agreement that achieves validates viewpoints. We just have to understand each others viewpoints without having to agree with all of them. How we get to this point? By creating open and respectful dialogue that allows everyone to be heard. We validate each others points and reach an agreement based upon mutual understanding. We are all brothers and sisters. There is no reason for us to act like enemies...