“The president believes that there is a right for people to bear arms, but that all laws must be followed” – Dana Perino, White House spokeswoman, about President Bush’s response to the slaughter of students by a gunman at Virginia Tech today.
The President is correct that Americans have a right to bear arms -– under the Second Amendment to our Constitution -– but that right should be repealed. And true, changing the Supreme Law of the Land provides no guarantee that the new laws will be followed, any more than the current laws, but anything that reduces the number of guns and rifles at large is a good thing.
It is also true that people, not guns, pull the trigger. But if the gunman at Virginia Tech had been armed with a knife, fewer people would have been killed.
Repealing the Second Amendment would not mean that all law-abiding citizens would have to turn over their weapons to the government. It would mean, however, that more stringent laws could be enacted to reduce the flow of guns, and these laws could be vigorously enforced without coming into conflict with the Constitution.
The gun from the moment of its invention was a revolutionary, unprecedented weapon. For more than three centuries, the Japanese samurai rejected as dishonorable the assaulting of someone from a distance.
Unlike knives, which can used to cut food as well as people, the gun and rifle have only one purpose: to wound or kill. True, this can be a good thing if we are using the gun to stop someone else with a gun, but wouldn’t we all be better off if there were fewer of these weapons around to begin with?
We have a long road ahead whatever we do. But I would like to see police guns replaced by non-fatal weapons such as tasers, hunters limited to guns they rent and use only in designated hunting areas, and guns on the street reduced in all ways possible. We don’t need to repeal the Second Amendment to do this, but repealing the Second Amendment would make it legal.Powered by Sidelines