While there is certainly an empathetic side to the 2A argument, especially in light of recent tragedies, Americans must remember the true purpose the Second Amendment and its ability to also protect our country’s people and her future.
2A in a nutshell is designed to keep the government in check with its people – to provide symmetry in power. And isn’t that an interesting concept considering the massive government overreach that we’ve experienced as a society over the past few years?
History tells us that some of the world’s most barbaric leaders like Hitler, Stalin, Mao, and Castro all began their tyranny by confiscating the private arms of their people. This is important to know and to remember, and almost a case-closed argument for 2A, but we’ll continue.
The United States gained 5 million new gun owners over the course of the pandemic. Ownership is skyrocketing across the country in all demographics, in part due to things like the ‘fiery but mostly peaceful protests’ as well as rising crime rates.
So, is a broad-stroke solution that targets both law-abiding and law-breaking Americans with the same pen the answer? What about those who are rightfully entitled to defend themselves against those who wish to do them harm? There are more than enough instances of people legally using firearms to protect themselves against the likes of intruders, stalkers, and any other type of psychopath who wishes to hurt others.
Let’s be clear, there is zero way that somebody like the Uvalde shooter should have been able to get his hands on a gun. We agree with that. However, we need to really ask ourselves what a solution is here that is not a sledgehammer to rights of peaceful Americans.
Should gun laws be stricter? We’re not sure. What about the gun laws currently in place that are not being enforced properly? This should be an immediate priority that goes under investigation across every state. Is there a role with law enforcement here too? Possibly.
The one underlying rose of the pandemic was that it opened many people’s eyes as to how much the government can – and wants to – control you. If gun laws are expanded, where does it begin and end? Will that snowball into things like political prejudices?
If you think that’s a far reach, just look at Canada. Remember they froze the bank accounts of people who donated to a movement that the leaders on Parliament Hill did not agree with. Also not surprisingly, Justin Trudeau just proposed a “freeze” on all handgun purchases, transfers, and sales.
If there is a reasonable and manageable gun control solution that can fairly identify and cherry-pick those who purely have intent to hurt others beyond what is currently in place and being properly enforced, we’re all ears.
All parties should agree on that.