The question is simple and to the point, and many people today are asking it. Older voters would like to know so that they can vote responsibly in elections, and younger people are curious so that they might be able to serve their nation best when it comes to voting. Why should citizen be allowed to have guns? And if a citizen should be allowed to have a gun, then is it reasonable to have a magazine limit? Though the questions are simple, the answer is multifaceted.
Living in a technology centered culture, hunting is a foreign concept to many people across American, but still a large group of people do it. Obviously, it is much easier to hunt with a riffle then a bow and arrow, and taking away guns would severely limit hunting. Animals would be harder to kill, and therefore when an animal was killed by an inexperienced bowman it would have a longer death than if a riffle was available. Of course, the argument that meat can be bought at a store and that there is no need for hunting is reasonable but not in alignment with our beliefs as American. We believe in freedom and liberty, and if someone wants to hunt for their meat then let them. As Americans we do not want a country dependent on mega businesses to provide everything we need because we would be helpless if ever they withdrew their support. Beyond that, it has been proven that if people do not hunt animals such as deer, elk, etc. the animals will over populate and destroy forests and land along with killing themselves off. Guns are needed for hunting.
However, is a large magazine needed for hunting? It should only take a single shot to take down any animal that someone would be hunting, but that is only part of it. Most hunters carry not only their riffle, but also a hand gun for protection. Out in the woods, a bear or mountain lion could come upon the hunters and quickly the hunter could become prey. In that case, a magazine of 10 bullets is needed as it is much harder to hit a target when it is charging at you.
So that is no longer the question, should guns be allowed for citizens to have; the question now is; should there be a maximum on the bullets that can fit in a magazine? And should citizens be able to own semi-automatic and automatic weapons? Would 10 rounds be effective for protection in hunting? As a hunter myself, I know that 10 bullets would be ideal for defense in that situation, and a semi-automatic, much less an automatic, weapon is absolutely not needed to hunt. The question now becomes: is hunting the reason that the Constitution gave us the right to own guns?
The second Amendment to the Constitution reads as follows: “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.” Curious isn’t it? “Shall not be infringed”; cannot be limited, regulated, or taken away in any small or large form without due process (Amendment 5). Already we see that the original purpose of the 2nd Amendment stands as a testimony against the bans against large magazine and stands against automatic weapons being unlawful to own by a normal citizen. But why? Not for hunting surely! America has always prided themselves that we do not listen to a dictator, but we think for ourselves, so why do we need unlimited guns? The answer is clear in the clause before: “A well regulated Militia.” Militia. Now that is not a word common to the home. Strangely enough, it is not a synonym to the word “army”. A militia is an army of the people, the citizen, every day folk. A militia is separate from the army of a nation, and they train on their own time. They are called on to fight in times of war, but they have another purpose which is revealed in the Declaration of Independence. “But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism (Dictatorship), it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.” Our founding fathers charged us to be a well regulated militia so that we could throw off our government if it ever tried to take away our right and began to abuse its authority.
That is why George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, and James Madison gave us the 2nd Amendment and the right to bare all kinds of arms. For could a people over throw a tyrant if they were not allowed the same arms as the government? If we are limited in our ammunition and what types of guns we are allowed to have then how could we over throw a government which processed everything that we did not? We were not given guns by our fore fathers to hunt with, we were given our guns to protect our rights with, and what can a government want to take away our powerful weapons for excepts to bind our hands behind our backs or that they can take away our rights without risking a revolution? We are the checks and balances of our government, and if we allow them to take away our power, then we are laying down like a sheep to be slaughtered.
But wait. Wait. The citizens should not have automatic rifles and large magazines because what about the guns getting into the wrong hands? A viable concern. With the Connecticut shooting and the Aurora shooting (which was very close to my home), should not we be cautious giving out weapons designed to kill? Stay with me for a moment as we walk through several words. Criminal. That is the boy who kill the children at the school; that is the man who shoot down people in a movie theater. What is a criminal? A criminal is someone who does not obey the laws. So think for a moment. If we create a law against automatic weapons and large magazines, who would not obey the laws? The criminals. Who would obey the laws? The citizen like you and me. The laws would therefore be ineffective because those who the laws were designed to stripe of their power would not be affected, but those who the law would be designed to protect would be even more unprotected and vulnerable and exposed. There are plenty of ways to get an automatic weapon illegally, even with a quick fix, one could make a legal semi-automatic weapon an automatic. These laws would not get rid of the people who commit mass murder; they would only bind up the hands of the people whose lives are being threatened.
Imagine if a citizen at the movie theater had a gun. Witnesses admitted that there was a long pause when the shooter changed magazines. How easy would it have been to shoot down that man? How many lives would be saves? These laws which the government is proposing are not to protect you; they are to hinder you from fighting back. Because if you cannot fight back again the manic with the gun at the school, then you cannot fight back against the government take over.
The first thing Hitler did was ban guns and get rid of weapons except among his elite people. The first thing Stalin did was get rid the common population of arms. And we all know what happened next. There is only one reason why a government would take away our rights to all type of arms, and it is not for our safety.