The 2nd Protects The Rest

Let's not mince words, here: Without the second amendment, the other amendments fall like dominoes. Rules, regulations, and rights mean nothing without the ability to enforce and protect them. But it isn't quite as cut and dried as saying that the right to bear arms shall not be infringed, is it? I don't think all American citizens should have guns, and I'll explain that stance in this blog. It's complex and it puts me at pains with myself to express, but we all have our crosses to bear, don't we? Let's carry on.

Who should not be allowed to bear arms, if the right seems to belong to all citizens in the constitution? Well, I doubt the founding fathers foresaw today's particular situations, so I hope I don't lose too many of you in this explanation. Here goes nothing: Immigrants coming into this country, for starters, who have not become citizens, should not be allowed to purchase guns in this country, nor should they be allowed to bring them in without a thorough background check. What with terrorist activity and a spate of illegals killing citizens, I'm sorry, but that's just how I stand. 

The next group I would deny access to guns is the mentally unfit. Now, I know there will be a bit of grumbling about who determines who is unfit, but a line has to be drawn somewhere, doesn't it? People with multiple personalities, major depressive disorder, schizophrenia, psychopathy, sociopathy, etc, should not be able to own or purchase guns in my humble opinion. The medications they take, for beginners, is not compatible with responsible gun ownership. I wouldn't want someone to have access to a weapon who can change their mind violently at a moment's notice to include harm to themselves or others.

The final group that should not be allowed access to firearms is a matter of existing law that I happen to agree with. Felons, especially those convicted of a violent crime. It is a bad decision, in my opinion, to trust someone who has already violated your trust. Just like remaining with someone who has beaten you, there is every likelihood that another beating is just a matter of time. So, too, with gun violence.

Now, I certainly don't believe that banning guns has any place in the discourse, nor does regulating magazine capacity. Taking away guns and limiting magazines and bullet stocks only affects legal citizens. Criminals are already breaking laws, what are a few more? Disarming the general public leaves criminals armed and makes innocent people helpless. It creates victims, that's all it does.

Equally, red flag laws are a monumentally bad idea. They have an amazing possibility of being misused and abused, just like sexual harassment laws. To silence and harass people you disagree with, with little to no chance for repercussions and consequences for the person who falsely accused. Worse still, what about the possibility of the guns not being properly returned to the person from whom they were received? Some have even speculated that the tip that leads to the seizures could be kept anonymous, which is complete horse hockey, if you ask me. We have a right, as American citizens, to face our accusers.

I don't think there are as many people I've described, who obviously would have to divest themselves of their guns, but I think we can at least agree that the reasons I've stated above are at the very least arguable. The false pretense of gun control is a power play to put the average American at the beck and call of the elected officials. Just think about it: If the Liberals are willing to do things to you while you're armed, fear what they will do to you when you no longer have guns?