Here's what the 2nd Amendment in the Bill of Rights says:
"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."
The amendment refers the security of a free State. I think that includes the security of its individual citizens. That’s the purpose for which militia/arms are approved by the constitution.
Clearly the right is intended to allow militia, and perhaps individuals, to use arms in defense of their security.
It does not grant a right to use lethal firearms to murder innocent people. Quite the contrary.
Nor does it specify that the arms must be lethal.
Why do we need lethal firearms?
The only reason for feeling that ordinary citizens need lethal firearms is that others have lethal firearms. It's clear that buying an assault rifle, in today's America, is for the sole purpose of killing other people.
Handguns are designed for the same purpose--to kill. Most shooters can't count on "safely" wounding a person, and any gunshot can be fatal.
If there were no lethal firearms we wouldn't need lethal firearms. But there are lethal firearms out there, millions of them.
We still need to defend ourselves
Ours has become a dangerous society, primarily because the criminal and the insane can easily buy weapons of death, and murder crime victims and slaughter innocent students or bystanders. Until we find a way to get people to give up those weapons, we need to defend ourselves, especially women and other people who are the targets of hate or discrimination. We can't arm them all.
Or can we?
The ideas in the novel, We the Enemy, are there to provoke thought about what to do about gun violence in a country where the foes and proponents of gun control are stymied. As things are, nothing will happen.
Politicians fail to give this deadly issue the debate and consideration that we the people should demand because they fear political repercussions and the influence of the National Rifle Association.
And much of that is fear and influence is driven by the free market forces of gun and ammunition manufacturers.
We will NEVER pass laws that universally ban guns in this country, at least not in the foreseeable future.
So change the status quo
However, here’s the real-world possibility for change; if you put market forces behind a move to get rid of lethal firearms in order to replace them with a whole new kind of defensive weapon that will bring the gun and ammo makers billions in profit, who knows what might happen?
Wouldn’t the guns and ammo lobby give up on lethal weapons if they had a viable and hugely profitable alternative?
How could the National Rifle Association continue it's pressure if there was a way for any citizen to arm themselves defensively, and there was a way for hunters to still hunt without lethal firearms?
Let's create the alternative
Why not arm citizens with non-lethal defensive weapons? I think a lot of people would feel a lot safer if they could carry one of the "stoppers" described in the novel. Hunters could have similar non-lethal weapons. These weapons could easily be made with current technology.
The law needs to recognize the nature of lethal weapons--that they are made for killing. By definition, then, someone who owns a lethal firearm intends, at some time, to kill another human being. Let's make that an automatic felony conviction. There simply is no other purpose for owning a lethal firearm. Oh, you can say that there's target shooting, but you don't need a lethal firearm to shoot at targets.
Think about it.
Comments