By CHARLIE ALLO
It’s time to take a reasoned approach to the question of gun ownership, before the subject gets so distorted that it becomes almost impossible to address the subject. The Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution gives us a good starting point for discussing the ownership of arms, There are some important points to keep in mind as we proceed through this discussion of gun rights, they are as follows: This amendment was written when the United Sates had thirteen states, and we had to use force to extract ourselves from the oppressive English Crown; there are other factors that would come into play as the Nation evolved, which will have an impact on how the Second Amendment should be viewed, remember, we are not dealing with a static environment, it has been a very dynamic environment during its evolution.
When the populations of the original thirteen colonies started to push into areas beyond their borders the need for arms expanded for protection against a variety of threats; we will put aside the question of right or wrong related to these intrusions into regions occupied by others at that time. We were dealing with lands that had no borders as they may be defined today, for the matter this process goes on to this day, even within our own borders, and if we can’t hold and defend or borders they will change too. The fact remains that a good portion of the land that we call the United states was gained by conquest, but two purchases ‘stand out and they were the Louisiana and Alaskan acquisitions, but there were also a number of acquisitions that came about by treaties.
Now we need to consider the Second Amendment in light of all the ways that arms have served us throughout our history, which also includes self defense as it was applied in the Wild West, a condition that exists in many of our communities today, regretfully. The landscape has changed, but the same threats that we experienced during our evolution are still with us today. There is still a need for individuals to arm themselves, and not be limited by the interpretations that those that are looking to 0disarm responsible law abiding individuals. There are an endless number of ways to kill people, but for some reason they are people that have chosen one that our Constitution has said is a right, and that it should not be infringed upon. The basic principles can still be applied as intended, but a limiting factor should not be applied to the wording, as many are trying to do.
The media is quick to sensationalize any action that is committed by a person that has used a gum in the commission of a crime, when the weapon was purchased legally, but will ignore all the killings that occur every day in many of our large cities, which are greater than the number of people killed in the Los Angeles’ shooting, and that applies to both the killing and injured, and most of these were committed by people using handguns.
The reasoning being used by the confiscation proponents is to take guns away from law abiding individuals, is that these killings will end, but the facts would seem to indicate that this view is not supported by the facts, given the numbers in cities that have very strict gun laws. The government could take all the guns from law abiding citizens, and the criminals would still manage to get the weapons they wanted, but the citizens would no longer be able to defend themselves.
We are not going to be able to stop killings, this has been going on throughout mans’ history, but we can take actions that will lessen the number of cases, and still protect all the other area that need to be available to citizens to prevent a dictatorship from taking hold of our Nation, and this is what is being ignored in the debate that is going on.