In the wake of the shooting in Orlando, the heated debate of whether Americans need to institute stricter gun laws has taken center stage. There is a repeating pattern in the U.S. of witnessing a national tragedy, swearing to never allow such incidents to happen again, and then halting when the solution to such violence is regulation and restriction of guns.
The sound bite of all NRA members, conservatives, Republicans, gun enthusiast, and most Texans, is: “I have a right to bear arms.” The right to bear arms are the only four words that most will retain from the 2nd Amendment, one of the Bill of Rights ratified December 17, 1791. There is a dichotomy in this nation [U.S.] between swearing off violence, excluding the voice of the religious fanatics, and maintaining a firm grip on firearms. The full text of the 2nd Amendment is 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.” No where does the 2nd Amendment state simply, citizens have a “right to bear arms.” In fact, of the 27 words that make up the 2nd Amendment, one would have to remove 23 words to form the go to phrase, right to bear arms. The below image explains.
The right to bear arms is contingent on the preamble of a well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state. A well regulated militia is neither necessary nor desired in a modern age. The security of a free State is with in the authority of local, state, federal, and military services. Ergo, if the preamble no longer applies, which clearly defines the perimeters of the conditions needed to validate the following statements, then the following passage “, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.” is null and void. This is not an interpretation of the text but a mere following of instruction. Congress would have to write: “The right of the people to keep and bear arms for personal and public use shall not be infringed.” at which point, the “right to bear arms” would be valid and quoting the Constitution would be accurate.
Now, I understand that there was a case in 2008, District of Columbia v. Heller 554 U.S. 570 (2008). The question before the court was:
Do the provisions of the District of Columbia Code that restrict the licensing of handguns and require licensed firearms kept in the home to be kept nonfunctional violate the Second Amendment?
Decision was 5-4
“The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home.”
“The Amendment’s prefatory clause announces a purpose, but does not limit or expand the scope of the second part, the operative clause. The operative clause’s text and history demonstrate that it connotes an individual right to keep and bear arms.”
For those gun enthusiast that due their due diligence, this is their holy grail they refer to. I do concede that the high court ruled in one direction. But to what end? In my opinion, the high court made a devastatingly wrong decision that was directly influenced by the $4 million dollars that the NRA contributed to the U.S. Congress since 2008 and the results of such a decision has resulted in more mass-shootings and bloodshed than the U.S. has seen in its entire history.
People will argue that the U.S. would be safer with MORE guns. The absurdity and offense of this argument is beyond comprehension. If you combine the populations of Great Britain, France, Germany, Japan, Sweden Denmark, and Australia, you get a population roughly the size of the United States. In 2015 there were more than 50,000 violent gun related incidents in the U.S., 12,000 resulting in death. In all of the listed nations, there were 115 fatalities related to guns. Are Americans more prone to be homicidal by nature or is it because all of the other nations have gun control laws?
The 2nd Amendment is the first problem in the consistent death toll in America. We have a perverse obsession with guns, violence, and the illusion that the powerful are armed. And with easy and unrestricted access to firearms in conjunction with a poorly educated population being influenced by radical zealots who preach hate and politicians that are self-serving while laying in bed with gun lobbyist, its no wonder that:
- 10 dead – Oregon, 9 injured
- 27 dead – Sandy hook, 3 injured
- 16 dead – San Bernardino, 22 injured
- 49 dead – Orlando, 53 injured
There was 182 mass shootings in 2016 & 1217 mass shootings since January 1st, 2013. I’ll let that sink in for a second.
Another argument is that if guns are restricted, people will buy guns from the black market and still shoot people. Yes, that is a possibility and while that is a possibility, this is fact.
The facts don’t support the ‘black market sales’ argument.
This has to stop. We have been to too many funerals, seen too much blood shed, and become so desensitized to our new narrative that, mass shootings is just a way of life. Is that truly the world we want to live in?
The 2nd Amendment had its purpose for its time but times have changed and so must the implantation of the 2nd Amendment. Gun control is simply vital to the future progression of America.
Enough is enough. Or have we had enough?