American Roulette
Listening: Pharoahe Monch – When the Gun Draws
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.
Recognize that? If you live in these United States, you should; it’s the Second Amendment to our Constitution that came into effect with nine other Amendments in the Bill of Rights in 1791. How much you wanna make a $5 bet that you can’t name what the Third Amendment states?(1) Much like the rest of the Bill of Rights, no one will contest that the Second Amendment was written with the safety of the country’s people in mind; the intention being to protect them from any sort of tyrannical government or enemy infringing on their freedoms. Freedom of speech (First), search and seizure (Fourth), innocence until proven guilty by a jury of your peers (Fiiiiif) are all testaments to this country’s vision that was laid out almost 225 years ago. Yet that pesky Second Amendment, as well-intentioned as it may be, has been the topic of many a fiery debate. Gun pun intended.
Before you go on, let me go on record as saying that I do believe that civilians should be allowed by law to have weapons, guns among them. I could see myself wanting to have one in my house to protect my wife and kids, and any other family when that time comes; that’s not a guarantee, I’ll cross that bridge when I get to it. But at what point do we step back and say enough is enough? Do people need semi-automatic rifles or assault weapons? Do you need to be able to spray 30 bullets like a super soaker at a mall? Do you need a silencer when hunting a deer? These are the things protected by that pesky Second Amendment that I don’t agree with. With the latest shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Connecticut, much like someone who portrayed a character I've quoted the most in my life, I've had enough of it. So for those packing, buck up, because I brought my brain to a gun fight(2).I will list below the main arguments made by gun enthusiasts, supporters, unapologetics, and some general idiots, along with the translation of what they actually mean to those of us who breathe through our noses. I will then follow that argument with what the majority of people would consider common-sense, logical rebuttals. When all is said and done, if you are still unwavering in your opinion that absolutely no gun control law revisions should be on the table, then… well, I guess please don’t shoot the messenger. I like living; mostly because I appreciate life. That’s why I don’t kill things.
GUNS DON’T KILL PEOPLE, PEOPLE KILL PEOPLE!
“We don’t need stricter gun laws, what we need is a change of culture in our society where we don’t kill people.”
Smart thinking. When you pose the argument like that, it takes the responsibility off the gun and puts it on the owner. Guns aren't the problem, it’s the people/culture/society that’s the problem. The gun is just an innocent killing machine made for the purpose of sending a metal bullet at things so fast Superman is compared to it. Yes, it’s true that our society requires some soul searching. Is anyone expecting a meteoric shift in that culture any time soon? This is a stalling technique made by gun supporters that says pretty much just wait out this hostility and yearly 6-figure death tolls related to guns until we start being nicer to each other; I don’t think we can make laws that could accommodate that anyway. Besides, people calling for gun control laws are calling for laws to affect THE PEOPLE THAT KILL PEOPLE, NOT guns. How can an inanimate object follow or break a law? Guns don’t kill people, they just make it really really easy for people to kill people.
CRIMINALS DON’T FOLLOW THE LAW ANYWAY!“
If someone wants to break the law, they’re going to no matter what.”
I can’t stand this one. In my opinion, it’s demeaning to the laws that we actually do have in place to protect us. There is a law that says that you’re not allowed to drive drunk, because you put other people in danger. People drive drunk anyway. They break the law. By this logic, this law should not be in place, because if you want to drive drunk, you’re going to do it anyway, so the law might as well not even attempt to try to stop you. We are all aware that if someone wants to get a gun and shoot someone, and they are determined to do so, they can and will do it. And yes, we do have laws that say that murder is illegal. What we don’t have are laws that say if you own an AK-47 and enough ammo to storm Stalingrad, you go away for a very, very long time. Criminals aren't going to follow the law, but that doesn't mean the law shouldn't exist.
GUNS ARE OUR LAST LINE OF DEFENSE FROM TOTAL SLAVERY!
“The Second Amendment was written so that the people can’t be enslaved by a government”
Does anyone think this is actually possible? Jason Alexander did a great job of portraying this picture in his article, saying that once the federal government disarms all of us that “These people believe that the US government is eventually going to go street by street and enslave our citizens.” For patriots who supposedly love their country (and freedom) so much, they sure don’t put all that much faith in it. They’ve seen it before, Russia and China and who knows where else; citizens in a police state, trapped by big brother, defenseless without their rifles. First of all, this is America, not 19th century Communista. Secondly, if the government actually wanted to overthrow us, it easily could; your couple of guns in your basement on a case of ammunition probably isn't going to save you. The Second Amendment was written in the 18th century when you had to load a gun with gunpowder and a stick, and I’m certain that the VAST majority of gun owners in this country don’t qualify as a “well-regulated militia.” That to me is the important part of the Amendment; you can tell because it’s at the beginning.
CARS KILL PEOPLE TOO, WHY DON’T WE BAN THEM?
“You can’t save everyone from dying with laws. There are other lethal things out there that kill people.”
Ah yes, the truly idiotic of arguments. Once a gun supporter brings this one out, I know that there will be no getting through their Kevlar-protected brain with my bullets of common sense. Can anyone explain to me the purpose of a gun besides killing people? Oh, killing animals? Got it. With the exception of intimidation (with a gun drawn, someone telling an intruder to get out of their house or else), guns really don’t have another purpose other than ending life. I’m positive that cars weren't invented, and the majority of the time are not used, to kill people. We put up with car-related deaths because the positive of having cars in our society outweighs the negatives. It is my opinion that the positives of having guns in our society do NOT outweigh the negatives. Someone on the other side compile a list of the positives of such loose gun laws, and let’s compare it with the negatives. Let’s also try to not have the same item show up on both lists.
IF SOMEONE WANTS TO KILL SOMEONE, THEY DON’T NEED A GUN TO DO IT!
“There are many other deadly weapons out there that can kill someone, such as knives, blunt objects, etc.”
Yes, if someone wants to kill me, they don’t need a gun to do it. They could hit me with a bat, or stab/slice me, hit me with a car, throw me off a roof or even just beat me to death with their own two hands. The thing is, I kind of have a chance to survive those attacks. I can fight back, I can run away, I can get help from someone nearby. Unless I have my non-existent bullet-proof vest on, and I’m shot in the chest or back, odds are I’m not winning the fight against a trigger finger. That’s the point of a gun; when you have one, you win. And we all lose.
IF MORE PEOPLE HAD GUNS, THERE WOULD BE LESS GUN DEATHS!
I don’t even have a translation for this one. I guess… if more people had guns, people would be afraid of getting shot, so in turn would shoot people less? I don’t know…I don’t have any sort of common sense debate for that one, I think the backwardness of the argument speaks for itself, so I’ll start my closing statement. I’m not for the total repeal of the Second Amendment; completely overwriting the Bill of Rights is not something I’m wired to believe in. But I, not unlike Bob Costas and countless others, do believe that this country needs some more proactive gun control laws. I’m not a lawmaker, nor do I play one on TV, so I’ll leave the exact criteria of such laws to people much more qualified than I (of which, I’m not even sure any current politician has that type of skill set to craft a ratification anyway). I would be for some sort of “one handgun per adult in a household” law, accompanied perhaps by some serious repercussions for bringing one in public. Any sort of automatic weapon or an excess of bullets will be punished SEVERELY. If you're a collector, you can have the gun; the bullets, on the other hand, are most likely unnecessary. If that’s too harsh, I’m open to suggestions and hearing things from the other side. You know who isn't open to suggestions and hearing things out from the other side? The people on the other side.
Have you ever had a conversation with a gun enthusiast about gun control laws? It’s mind-boggling. You almost don’t want to challenge their position too much, for fear of them popping off at the mouth of their revolver. Just so much as MENTION taking away one of their guns and they go commando on you; you’ll have to pry it from their cold dead hands. They need their guns to protect their liberties, and if you try and take them away, you’re going to have a BIG problem. Then they accuse the people that are for gun control laws of living in fear and imposing their beliefs on others so their comfort isn't disrupted. There’s something to be said about people who refuse to hear an argument, have a healthy debate, and refuse change under any circumstances; usually, what’s said is that they are children. And everyone knows children should not be allowed to play with guns. If you want to have your guns, you have to act like an adult, and sometimes adults have to talk big people talk about important things. Time and time again, we are reminded by tragedies (Aurora, CO; Newton, CT; Clackamass, OR; and those are just recent memory; let’s not forget Trayvon Martin) that the discussion needs to be had. When the topic is fresh in people’s heads is when you want to do it; but of course, try and bring it up, and now you are using a tragedy for political gain. Guess what: sometimes, political gain can turn into a societal gain. Frankly, we owe it to victims and family of victims to have the conversation; we don’t owe stubborn gun-wielding citizens the right to hold conversations hostage. Maybe we can even grandfather them in, but double the penalty should they break any law. People are tired of these tragedies, but an even bigger tragedy is allowing them to continue to happen uncontested by hiding behind that pesky Second Amendment. Guns don’t kill people, people kill people. I just hope at some point, our people will be able to kill guns too.
“No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the Owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.” Very relevant in today’s times, yes?
Yes, I’m aware that in a brain vs gun fight, the brain usually loses. It was a metaphor. Just like Mr. Bullet in the Pharoahe song.
