top of page

The Second Side of Gun Control

On Wednesday, Nov. 7 a man who will not named because he doesn’t deserve the infamy killed 12 people, including himself, at a country bar in Thousand Oaks at around 11 p.m. PST.

He committed this crime by illegally modifying his weapon’s magazines to carry more bullets than allowed in California, and using a common pistol, the Glock .45.

As a journalist and a human being, it hurts deeply to even think that an attack like this could happen in the United States. If I knew someone or was there myself, I would have been shaken to my core. All those attending and who lost their lives were frequent visitors of the bar and were especially young, college students. Those people deserve so much more.

After the smoke clears and those that were lost are finally able to rest in peace, there will be discussion on what to do to prevent such attacks from ever happening. However, with the current political division, both sides are going to fight tooth and nail on what should be done in order to protect Americans from these shootings.

Those who lean on the left will demand stricter regulation on firearms or even a complete ban on firearms. Those who lean on the right will request a stronger focus on mental health, looser regulations on semi-automatics, specifically, on open-carry laws, and the current laws to be enforced.

Nevertheless, both people want what's best for our country, but see different ways at creating a world where people won’t be in danger.

At the moment, I am not comfortable nor equipped to explain the liberal perspective on gun control, but I am most definitely ready to provide the conservative perspective on the purpose of firearms in a civil society.

It all starts with the second amendment which goes 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.” I cannot stress how clear this means that for the protection of a free country, a well regulated army is required which then in turn justifies the necessity for the citizens, or the people, to be able to have weapons themselves as well.

Some state that this gives the government the right to own arms for a military, but those people are mistaken. A government doesn’t have to give itself the right to own guns.

The second amendment, as some allude to, was NOT written for people to go hunting, only to protect people from foreign invaders, or just because they are cool, but as a means of protecting all the inalienable rights you were with are born with from the government and others who want to suppress them.

For example, every human being is born with the the right for self-preservation, which means that, as a person, you have the right to protect your life by all means necessary if someone poses a threat or is attempting to end it.

Now, guns are not just for the strong man who wants to protect themselves but for the weak man, the women, the sick, the elderly and the crippled. Guns are the greatest equalizer between two individuals where one has a physical advantage.

A recent example of this is, strange enough, is in 13 Reasons Why where in season 2, episode 12, around the 31 minute mark, Monty begins to threaten Alex. Alex happens to be in crutches during the scene and is not able to defend himself in any fight. However, when Monty beings to approach Alex, Alex takes out a pistol as a deterrent. That took the crippled and made him more powerful than the abuser. Alex, who couldn’t swing a bat for his life, could use a gun if he had to even with the little strength he had in the show.

Now, when and if the government becomes Monty in the situation above, the same principle applies.

If that government tries to take away your property, your life, or your rights, you and the people have firearms to defend what they deserved for being a human being or earned for working hard. And even though certain individuals will claim that the U.S. states military would defeat any armed rebellion in the United States, I would disagree.

That is an absolute, and absolutes are never easy to defend when looking at history. Look at Afghanistan in history, in which a technologically inferior nation with little infrastructure was able to fend off the U.S. military and the Soviet Union army. Those were the world powers at the time, and they could not conquer the region.

Individuals on liberal perspective will bring up the idea of a complete ban or extremely restricted access, in turn trusting the government for protection, but than state that Trump and the Trump administration is a fascist regime. So, with that logic, they are willing to give up firearms to a fascist administration.

A natural distrust of government is at the heart of the conservative ideology, because conservatives view the government as a club to protect the people. However, a club, and the government, has the ability to turn against its own people if the wrong people are welding that club. Humans are capable for great good or evil in this world.

Evil people will get their hands on firearms no matter what laws states. Evil people do not care about laws. Only good people care about laws, because good people understand that in order to have a free, and functioning society, we need an agreed upon social contract.

This is why the ability for citizens to own firearms is vital because when a genuine evil works its way into power, people have methods to stop the evil from taking advantage of the weak and the good. If any idea or concept must be taken from this conversation is that rights are not given to you, but you are born with them, and the establishment of a government was intended in order to protect those rights from being suppressed. Without the ability to protect those rights yourself, nothing stops them from being taken away.

You Might Also Like:
bottom of page