There are stark differences when it comes to the right to bear arms and those most vocal in the fight. On the one hand, to the far left are the extreme Liberals, who want complete removal of guns from the hands of the citizens. They hold absolute faith in the law enforcement and the military to protect us should we need it. Those on the other side of the argument are accused of trying to start a war, building their own “army” of sorts and stockpiling weapons to support such a move.
On the other hand, to the far right are the extreme Conservatives, who want the freedom to collect as many weapons as they see fit without limits or restrictions. They accuse the other side of trying to infringe on their “Constitutional right to bear arms”. They often accuse the government of wanting to enforce a state of Martial Law, therefore granting the current POTUS position and power for as long as he sees fit.
Then there is everyone else. Seated somewhere in between the two extremes, not wanting to lose the right to bear arms but not really agreeing that a weapon that can spray 100 bullets per second is really necessary for the average citizen to own. Considering the increasing number of incidences with either mentally-unstable or drug-influenced gun toting people showing up in public places armed to the teeth with various types of rapidly firing weapons taking the lives of innocents, those in the middle feel that something has to be done to put an end to it…or at least direct the country the right way to putting an end to it.
The fact is that MORE guns is not going to help. Regulating the guns we DO have and, more importantly the people who have them IS going to help. Drug testing, more thorough background checks (especially at gun shows), limiting private sales and restricting or tracking those sales, etc. All things that are not unreasonable. Certainly not as unreasonable as putting guns in schools (when prison guards don’t carry them…around violent offenders).
Personally I don’t see the need for anyone to keep a weapon that is not used or hunting. Period. Does that mean that I think that we should get rid of them? Of course not. This is something my liberal friends and I disagree on. I do, however think that if you are going to keep something in your possession that can be used to kill another human being as easily as one can with a gun then you should be responsible enough to follow certain regulations to keep them.
No, there wasn’t anything written into the Constitution about drug-testing before bearing those arms. However at that time what we consider illegal drugs (cocaine, for example) were sold legally and often prescribed to cure certain ailments. Something we now know to be ridiculous. The weapons people had access to were NOT something that could be used to stop a truck either.
My point is this: As we as a people evolve, as our understanding of other cultures and peoples changes, as our weapons become bigger and more dangerous…hell, as more and more psychoactive drugs get handed out to counter supposed mental and psychological issues we need to evolve our policies to change with them. Before it becomes too late. Before we have another tragedy killing that could have been avoided by a simple urine test and a conversation with someone with a PhD and a couch.