Gun debates 2016

After the latest incident in Orlando, the issue of gun availability reaches to the foreground. Gun debates ensue among politicians and candidates and the second amendment comes into question. If you understand the historical implications, it is not an issue of the second amendment. Gun debates should be focusing whether the writers of the United States Constitution would have approved of the use of machine guns or assault weapons. This seems to be lost among all the debaters.

The heinous incidents involving mass shootings often were due to assault weapons being used. Fast and repetitive, these are designed to produce the most damage. Used since World War I, these types of guns were used in gangland wars of the 1920’s and 1930’s. They are not covered or conceived by the Constitution.

In the 1700’s, a gun or rifle was used for protection of self and family against poachers and criminals in frontier settings. They were used to defend against foes. If there were many foes, the community would use single-shot rifles as defense.

Also, rifles were used to hunt for food. Without neighborhood butcher shops or supermarkets, a rifle or shotgun enabled families to have meat as part of their meals.

Assault weapons are intended for war and mass killings. They are not for sport or hunting. Guns and rifles are for sport and hunting animals.

The many gun debates ignore these distinctions. The second amendment never intended this weapon to be used at home. Should every home had the right to have a cannon?

While many assault weapons are manufactured and sold in the USA, their profitability is significant. The demand is also high. Yet, there is no reasonable purpose for the average citizen to own one. Hunting regulations prohibit their use against fowl and animals.

Use of salt was once linked to hypertension. Ownership and use of assault weapons aren’t lethal themselves but, in the hands of an irresponsible or momentarily insane person, catastrophes are bound to happen.

The military and law enforcement require assault weapons. In legislative gun debates, sale and purchase of assault weapons and parts should be heavily restricted. Responsible use of guns and rifles should be legal (with local restriction options) as an adult under 2nd amendment specifications.

Assault weapons were not included in the US Constitution and anyone who subscribes that it was is using a very, very broad interpretation of its content. Legislative gun debates must not rewrite the Constitution but, rather, focus legitimately that the use of assault weapons by ordinary citizens should be prohibited. Broad attempts to make guns and rifles illegal are sensitive, break party lines, and are futile.

The second amendment must not be eliminated. A new amendment needs to be added banning assault weapons for ordinary people, as soon as possible. The constitution was to protect the common good. Gun debates must realize this. Fortunately,