1

I apologize for the rant, but I feel I should expound here, if only to give people food for thought.

[rant]

In the United States, we are brought up to be ideologically patriotic libertarians. Maximum freedom and maximum zeal. People don't seem to understand, however, that true freedom doesn't exist. Unqualified freedom is, quite literally, anarchism. It's made all the worse when our libertarian ideals are tied together with a sense of compulsory nationalism, a unmitigated pride in one's country for no other reason than that one lives in it. As a result, many lead lives believing that we are a free country and we should be proud of this. Alas, these people probably never considered what "free" means, and many aren't aware that even by our own standards, we are not the freest country in the world. Far from it.

Social contract theory is the foundation of modern society. Social contract is what binds a society together: we sacrifice certain liberties in favor of greater social cooperation. We are not allowed to murder each other, but we will work together to punish those who do. We cannot rape, but we will work together to prevent others from doing so to us or those we love. We cannot steal, but we will work together to support each other as a community so that nobody has to. We sacrifice certain liberties to ensure safety and security as a society. We lay down our arms and work together to building a society wherein all can live comfortably. When someone violates this social contract, we band together to punish them. Over time, this contract grows more complex as we grow more advanced. We no longer lynch the criminals, but give their fair trial and due process like everyone else. We give to the poor and develop welfare systems which support society from its base. We legislate sophisticated laws and regulations, and formulate bold policies and initiatives, all to help foster a healthier, safer, and better society.

One of the liberties we sacrifice for overall safety is the right to privately own deadly weapons and use them however we please. People can still own these weapons and purchase them, but they must satisfy certain criteria before doing so. This is to prevent abuse by those who wish to exploit the system or break the social contract. Guns are one such deadly weapon, but unlike blades and bludgeons, they possess a far greater lethality amplified by its range and ease of use.

Some argue that the right to own guns should remain an unqualified freedom, and that no restrictions should be placed upon it or those who exercise it. This is a flawed argument, however, because it attempts to elevate gun ownership above the social contract as something incontrovertible and unalienable no matter the circumstances. In doing so, they justify all manner of criminals and wrongdoers to exploit this exemption in the contract, thereby leading to social disorder. Since this right would no longer be governed by the social contract, it results in a society which is subject to the whims of those who exploit it. Without any restrictions or fetters, there is nothing to prevent gun violence from occurring. Vigilantes will use their guns to fight those they think are threats to society and criminals will have far easier access to a limitless weapons restrained only by the amount of money they steal.

Others argue that the right to own guns should be revoked wholesale alongside rape and murder, since it is such a danger to society and its constituents. This argument is also flawed because guns—like any weapon—are tools and it is up to the possessor to decide when and how to use it. It is true that guns are a weapon, a type of tool whose sole function is to harm another; however, weapons can be used both for criminal misconduct and lawful protection. The key is preventing the former from acquiring these weapons while respecting the latter's right to protect themselves and others. The problem with obtaining this balance is that it is often approached legally rather than culturally. These others would prefer legal prohibition of firearms as the solution. In reality, this only ends in depriving the lawful from legally protecting themselves while permitting the lawless to hold a monopoly on civil firepower. When this policy is extended to law enforcement, we effectively defang the only body of people adequately trained enough to combat criminals through their monopoly on violence.

The solution, I believe, is both legal and cultural reform, with an emphasis on the latter. Gun control is certainly something that is rather necessary in a civil society: background checks to ensure violent criminals with recent blemishes on their record aren't loading up with guns; psychiatric evaluations to ensure those who purchase the firearm(s) are healthy-minded and responsible citizens rather than someone planning their suicide or prone to uncontrollable fits of rage; appropriate licensing and registration to ensure they are held accountable for their ownership and don't abuse their right; and mandatory training and testing to ensure the gun owner has adequate knowledge and discipline to properly handle a firearm and situations which call for its application.

(Had to break it up because I actually hit the character limit for SG. I didn't think there was one!)

But this isn't the only, or even the main, reform that is necessary. The United States is a very trigger-happy nation who loves their metal toys. Unlike gun culture in Sweden or Switzerland, however, gun culture in the US is a perverted, ill-mannered variant of firearm appreciation. We have an obsession with guns. It's in our mass media, our movies, our music, and our games. There are conventions and magazines and organizations dedicated solely to gun collecting and appreciation. These in and of themselves are not bad, and they can be found in many societies with healthy gun cultures, but we express this culture so openly and fanatically that is borders on idolatry. Unlike other nations, whose appreciation of guns remain moderate and reserved, we openly profess our love for our tools of death.

Another issue with our gun culture is that we treat guns as status symbols and expressions of one's masculinity. Many purchase guns to reinforce some ideal of masculinity and power, as if their ownership of a deadly weapons allots them more authority in the world or more weight to their words. Guns are not simply tools of protection or weapons of self-defense, but marks of pride and prestige, as if there is anything to be proud or prestigious about owning a gun. Even among female gun owners, there are those who treat it as if their guns grant them more strength and power. They feel safer, and perhaps rightfully so, but this illusion of safety can give them a false sense of security—something any gun owner can experience regardless of their sex.

Many gun owners, male and female, treat guns as wards against all threats and evils, real or perceived, when that is not a purpose of a gun. A gun is a source of protection under extreme circumstances, not a magic bubble which will guard you no matter where you walk. Many people grow overconfident to the point of arrogance when they own a gun, assuming an air of invincibility or invulnerability from any and all dangers so long as they are the quicker draw. This sort of attitude is a dangerous one to adopt since it threatens the lives of one's self and others. People become quicker to brandish or mention their ownership during heated disputes, as if it is a threat. They lose sight of what it means to own a gun: to carry a deadly weapon responsibly and treat it as a countermeasure to only the most dire of threats. It is not a negotiation tool, nor is it leverage in a dispute. This may not be most gun owners, or even the majority, but it's nonetheless widespread.

I believe this is because the gun culture in the United States facilitates these sorts of views. We obsess and we worship about our guns when we're better off treating them less like idols and more like tools. It's true that not all gun owners are like this, but the fact that even a significant portion of them are is indicative that something is wrong. It doesn't help, either, when our culture regards guns as playthings, when we describe them as "sexy", and when we treat them as if they were our babies.

I'm not sure how to change this cultural paradigm. Education can help, but I doubt it would be enough. In the end, the decision has to come from the gun owners themselves to lead responsible lives and treat their guns as tools rather than toys. Those who oppose or criticize these owners should always respect their right to own them, as well. Both sides must be willing to accept that guns too are subject to the social contract, however, and that the right to own one is a qualified freedom like most all others. Banning them outright disenfranchises the lawful of their guns and monopolizes the lawless as the sole possessors. Unrestricted purchase and ownership is hardly any better, however, when the law has no fangs to fight those who abuse their rights or take advantage of our nation's legal impotence to harm themselves or others.

What is needed is a paradigm shift in US gun culture and accompanying laws which hold owners accountable, while respecting their rights, so as to prevent the abuse of them. The problem with gun violence is not gun ownership per se, but rather the attitude about guns that a society fosters coupled with an ineffectual legal system which fails to adequately prevent the illicit circulation of firearms. When these guns are not accounted for, they can fall off the public record. When that occurs, there's no guarantee that the possessor of that firearm is the actual owner, or if they intend to be lawful with it. It's even worse when we as a society condones (and endorses) a conception of firearms as tools of influence to be used when all else fails and moreover let these firearms fall into the hands of the mentally ill.

Unfortunately, none of this can really occur when there are still gun nuts who would rather openly defy federal law than give up their guns, thereby breaking the very social contract which guarantees their safety and rights in the first place. Until this side cooperates with the gun control advocates, we will remain a trigger-happy nation in love with their metal toys. And people will die every day because of this.

(As for the 2nd Amendment itself... That's a bit more complex. I've already ranted long enough, so It's probably time to end it here.)

[/rant]

View attached image.

You weren't stating facts. You were stating anecdotes and unverified opinions (which may be false or blatant lies). Those are not "facts" in the slightest. Of course one has a constitutional right as a U.S. Citizen to own a gun; pointing out something so obvious as to be assumed as true does nothing to strengthen your position.

I don't care in the slightest about the opinions of men three centuries removed from our own society regarding the political issues of today. Their opinions are valuable in historical contexts, and many of them used cogent arguments to defend their positions. The documents they authored, however, are considered "living" in that they are open to reinterpretation based on the times in which it is reviewed. Their opinions and personal interpretations do not, nor should they, hold any bearing on contemporary debate surrounding political issues. Oh and by the way, George Washington vehemently opposed political parties. He's been "rolling in his grave" for nearly three centuries now.

The "Founding Fathers" fought for the end of subjugation and oppressive rule against the British Empire. They did not fight for your right to own guns in specific.

When you have a valid argument, feel free to present it and we can continue this discussion. Until then, I recommend finding better sources for your claims. Have a good day.