The gap between supporters and opponents of gun rights is growing, particularly with the Florida mass shootout still fresh in public memory. The political debates notwithstanding, it ultimately comes to whether or not to keep assault weapons.
While supporters of gun control are visualizing a bloodbath on the streets with more guns in more hands, NRA lobbyists are arguing that the government will take all guns away if assault weapons are banned successfully. The entire debate is actually about self-defense.
Other than the fear of providing criminals or mentally ill people with access to firearms, the real issue comes to not enforcing gun laws makes it insensible to push for improperly conceptualized laws which would witness guns coming into the possession of lawbreakers instead of law abiders.
The main question is, how does a person who cheered 9/11 as a high-school going kid become a psychotic racist bigot in charge of security with an assault gun? Even if that it means he was born in America, a member of the Democrats and a pious Muslim. The collapse in common sense, communication and smartness between fellow citizens, employers and members of the community of the genocidal killer is astounding in all its imbecility.
While all this is happening as a part of daily life, FBI, NSA and other federal agencies are supervising every citizen – which consists of law abiding ones – through computers and phones and making records of every utterance and text in the interest of national security. Each time a civil disobedience conflict happens, lawmakers try their best to trample on the civil rights of citizens, which includes trampling on free assembly, free press, free speech comprising of its First Amendment rights and guns rights offered by the Second Amendment.
Excessive militarization of cops also raises concerns about self-defense among patriots who will not like to witness tyranny in the name of liberty. Also, if cops continue to be limited in their ability to concentrate their efforts on risky individuals rather than general citizens, it is useless to hand over weapons to them which cannot be used against real criminals.
The Second Amendment includes the personal right of citizens to keep as well as bear weapons. While the Supreme Court has stated that the right is not unlimited, the scope of this right includes self-defense within the perimeters of home. The matter of self defense outside house is yet to be addressed by the court. At present, it is hearing arguments about bans on assault weapons which have been ordained for the sake of safety and health of citizens in the U.S. But the thing is that, the term “arms” according to regular dictionaries does not mean only firearms or guns but all things – whether a 6-shooter, crossbow, nightstick, harpoon, bowie knife, thermonuclear weapon, armored vehicle and guided missile among numerous weapons used for different purposes. The American government is believed to use the threat of atomic weapons and bombs for the interest of national defense. However, what number of such weapons have been used or employed in the present or past by military personnel kept under proper watch? It is difficult to understand where the line will be drawn finally?
About the Second Amendment, Thomas Jefferson had said:
“The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect ourselves against tyranny in government.”
It can well be argued that an excessive effort to attempt for the ban of possession of firearms by ordinary individuals can violate the Second Amendment as well as possibly the Fourth Amendment right to secure papers, home and person from undue seizure and search. It can only be hoped that this does not happen, although it actually has done so in many ways including personal privacy and self-defense.