Since the recent shootings at Aurora and Sandy Hook—and everywhere else—there’s been plenty of 2nd Amendment talk.
Piers Morgan and Alex Jones blathered at each other*. Some random Marine told a random blonde CNN anchor he wouldn’t register his guns if a certain law was passed. Endless Facebook posts on the subject—the only real vehicle for change in today’s society—have proven that we need more guns and also fewer guns.
Assuming you acknowledge that thousands of people needlessly dying each year from gun violence is a problem that needs to be addressed**, any reasonable solution must include modifying the 2nd Amendment.
If you’re of the opinion that we should limit, qualify, or otherwise inhibit keeping (i.e. owning) and bearing (i.e. carrying) arms (e.g. guns) as the 2nd Amendment currently states, that’s fine. But we can’t solve the inadequacies of the 2nd Amendment by ignoring it—only by changing it. Ignoring the Constitution removes one more check against overreaching federal power.
Advocates of gun ownership rightfully focus on the import role the 2nd Amendment plays in protecting life and property. When defending yourself, it’s important to be able to at least match the firepower of your assailant. But in practice, that reasoning begins to break down when one particular talking point is brought up: the need for citizens to protect themselves from a tyrannical government.
Two hundred years ago, a well regulated militia would be able to secure a free state. But today, if the people need to rise up against tyranny and start a revolution, we wouldn’t have a chance. Unless our gun safes include military drones and nukes, we would be bugs to the military-industrial windshield.
So I guess what I’m saying is this: if you want more gun regulation, you can’t keep pretending the 2nd Amendment doesn’t exist; if you trumpet the 2nd Amendment as a godsend against tyranny, you can’t keep pretending you’ve got a chance against the largest military force in the world.
If you think gun ownership and regulation is fine the way it is now, you’re worse than Alex Jones.
*Alex Jones actually made Piers Morgan look reasonable and sane in comparison, which is a feat in and of itself.
**And if you don’t, you’re delusional.