In my classmate’s blog, “The Good, The Bad, And The Ugly,”  she states that it is obvious that gun control isn’t working, because there were so many deaths from shootings. According to statistics from MADD, there are over 10,000 deaths and 290,000 injuries from drunk driving. The statistics from MassShootingTracker.org show approximately 600 deaths from mass shootings in the same time period. The CDC shows over 633,000 deaths a year from heart disease, and 595,000 from cancer. Where is the outrage of those lives that were cut short? According to some statistics, more than a million people a year die from regular car crashes. Of the statistics that gun control proponents love to spout, they always leave out that over half of gun deaths are self inflicted wounds. Rather than trying to pass more rules, maybe we should concentrate on enforcing the rules that are already in place.

It is time to talk about a very controversial topic, the dreaded topic of gun control.  This is very much a hot button topic right now.  Gun control is being shouted about, both for and against, by everyone in the media and politics.  So what is my stance are you wondering?  I propose that any form of gun control is not only illegal, but unconstitutional.  How did I come to this decision?  Let’s examine each aspect of it.

             First thing that we need to examine is the basis of gun ownership, The Second Amendment.  The Second Amendment of the constitution reads, “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.”  So let’s break this down and examine the parts.  A militia is defined by the dictionary as “1. A body of citizens enrolled for military service, and called out periodically for drill but serving full time only in emergencies.”  At first glance, lots of you are saying, that is our National Guard.  And you would be right, if you ignore the other definitions of militia.  The second definition states that citizen soldiers are distinguished from professional soldiers.  That’s fancy speak for they are not paid for what they do.  Examining things from that light moves the National Guard to a different variation of a standing army, not a militia.

                Even now, there are numerous people saying, but that doesn’t mean that assault rifle bans are unconstitutional.  The primary argument I hear for this point is that the founding fathers did not account for the assault weapons that we have now.  I have a different perspective.  The founding fathers intended for the Second Amendment to protect the types of weapons that the standing army would use.  I think that they understood that weapons would evolve, as they were aware of the evolution of the bow and arrow to the muzzle loader that was the primary weapon during the revolution.   Keeping that in mind, then any rifles currently fielded by any army in existence (mainly referencing AR-15, M-4, AK-47, etc.) are what the framers of the constitution envisioned being protected by the Second Amendment. 

                Now it should be noted that this is not referring to heavier weaponry such as cannons, rockets, or missiles.  The founding fathers did not equate heavy weaponry with everyday weaponry.  Again we have to reference the dictionary.  Arms in the dictionary, in relation to the definition having to do with weapons, defines arm as usually firearms, which is defined as small arms weapons, life rifles and pistols, from which a projectile is fired using gunpowder. So when we look at this logically, we see that any regulation on the ownership of any rifle or handgun that is in use by the military is by definition unconstitutional.