The Political Account: Right to have guns shouldn't be an absolute

Last week I wrote about the problems we face when examining preventive measures in regard to the horrific acts at the hands of the mentally ill. Acts that have taken the lives of so many — needlessly — to fulfil a message of hate written into their manifestos, drawn with the blood of the innocent.

I left off after briefly touching on where we stand in this society with gun ownership and what limitations should be imposed to prevent the deranged from having access to an instrument that can inflict so much devastation.

The Second Amendment was written with the intent to send a message to any governing body that its citizens have both the right and responsibility to take up arms against tyranny and an oppressive leadership.

Is this still true today?

Yes, it is, but not in the way that most people think. As a society, we are never going to grab our firearms and collectively rise up to face down our own military and overthrow our government. In truth, we can look at how the Egyptian president Mubarak was overthrown, where the military took the best interest of the nation and removed him from power; then they were responsible for overseeing the construction of a new government — at which point, they relinquished control.

I believe in the right to bear arms, but I also believe there should be limitations on arms possessed by citizens, law abiding or not.

Examine this truth: Are you allowed to own an operable tank, combat jet, or Black Hawk helicopter equipped with proper ammunition? Of course not. Why? Because it is impractical to own, let alone utilize, these instruments of war for anything but the likelihood of inflicting harm and terror.

We the people elect our peers to represent our interests and uphold the constitution, and they are charged with the responsibility of protecting our citizens. We need to prevent the mentally ill from obtaining firearms. I don’t think it is such a bad idea to require more in-depth background checks to ensure that these weapons don’t make it into the hands of those who would inflict harm. Yes, I understand that this would be problematic for gun sales, as most current restrictions are limited in impeding gun show merchants’ ability to sell their products on site. Businesses evolve, plain and simple. If you have a product that the consumer wants … they will wait the extra day or two to receive it.

I don’t believe that any law abiding citizen has ever provided me with a well-established argument for the necessity of owning an assault rifle or the need for an extended magazine that allows for extra rounds.

I don’t want to take guns away from people. I truly believe that if you were to remove guns from law abiding citizens, only the criminals will be left with them. But there has to be some common sense in establishing limitations of gun ownership.

People are dangerous and any weapons in the hands of the mentally ill can and will yield tragic consequences. No, I don’t believe that there should be “knife control” or “axe control.” The sick-minded will always find a way to inflict harm by whatever means available, but there are weapons that will create greater devastation than others, and those are the weapons we need to focus on keeping out of dangerous hands.

Who can we trust? Ourselves and those we elect. That is the beauty of our nation: should those who represent us take steps too far in restricting certain liberties, we can unseat them peacefully through our election process, and thus hold each one of them to account.

Writer Uriah Wilkinson is a local political contributor and a history buff. Contact him at [email protected].