Muse – The Second Amendment: What’s It About?

“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.”

Some folks want to do away with this law entirely. Some interpret this different ways. Some feel that it is a necessary freedom. What do you think?

For the Open Diary Political Forum

The second amendment is, in my opinion, a bit antiquated. Back in the day, the common people had a serious need for guns. Both as a tool for hunting and as protection from both the wilder elements and encroachment by hostile forces(brigands and British).

But those days have passed. Not that I think the second amendment should be done away with. But like all things it could do with a reevaluation and perhaps an update or few. Just like the Internet has set property laws and the like into contention, I think the modern world has changed enough that the second amendment should be given a serious look.

Police didn’t really exist back then. When it came to personal defense, you only had yourself, your sons(and if they were rough enough your daughters) and your neighbors to protect your community. And all of the above could do so with guns. In the modern world there are police who do a job of protecting. Some might argue at the effectiveness, but for all intents and purposes the good cops do what they can.

In today’s world, the right to own a gun is admissible. Though where the upper limit on firepower lies is a question. Personally, I don’t think that Joe American who works at a normal, non-military job needs an AK-47 to protect himself. A pistol is quite enough stopping power in general, I’d think.

There is also the consideration of keeping the population armed in order to guard against the government abusing the citizens too much. An interesting point to muse, but some factors throw doubt on it. Consider Iraq, which has filled the international spotlight as of late. Your average, everyday family keeps quite a cache of guns, yet the people have been held under a dictatorial regime for thirty years without rising up. Guns don’t necessarily make for a populace proactive enough to deal with an abusive government. I’d wager arming the people politically would do better as a primary.

Though I consider the possibility of such a dictatorial regime in the US unlikely, if not near impossible(nothing is entirely impossible, just not probable). The benefits of such an attempt at greater control within the world’s only current superpower are likely to be outweighed by the costs and issues involved.

But, beyond musing the future potential, what concerns me most is guns in the hands of criminals. I know that if you outlaw guns(to turn a cheesy phrase), only outlaws will have them. Criminals don’t usually get guns legally. I think the majority of our fight against guns needs to be focused on ways to both top criminals form getting guns and to take guns out of the hands of those who manage to get them. But how to do that without stepping on the rights of law abiding citizens? I don’t know, but I think that if we focused more attention on that rather than sparing over a right that has it’s place, even if it has changed over the centuries.

Like most problems in the world, the problem lies in people fighting harder rather than smarter.