Opinion: How the 2nd Amendment grants us total freedom to keep weapons

The 2nd Amendment of the United States Constitution still garners controversy about who has the right to own what. Many liberals don’t like “assault rifles,” stating that they can hold too many bullets, or have features that somehow make them more lethal. On the other hand, conservatives like gun laws just the way they are, believing that any law-abiding American has the right to keep and bear whatever firearm they desire. However, both of these mindsets are wrong in many ways.

The Second Amendment specifically states “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.” So, why have we infringed upon so much of this critical amendment? The National Firearms Act of 1934 banned civilians from owning automatic weapons and short-barreled weapons. The definition of what arms can be carried by whom and where has been constantly redefined in many cities and states, as well as at the federal level. In certain states, such as California, some firearm features are banned (such as adjustable shoulder stocks, “pistol grips,” bayonets, etc.) whereas other states, such as Oregon, allow automatic weapon ownership with proper licensing. But if we were to truly uphold the civil liberties granted to us, we would uphold them to the highest degree across all states and for all law-abiding citizens.

Frankly, we should have no issue with allowing citizens to carry whatever arms they choose so long as they abide by the law. if I were to own, say, a Howitzer artillery piece — currently used by the armed forces as an anti-personnel weapon — is that so wrong? So long as I have the right to defend myself from tyranny — external or internal — and have a place to rightfully exercise my use of said Howitzer, it becomes hard to discern why owning it would be unnecessary. Being a crew-served weapon, it would be hard to use it for malicious purposes without having a sizable group of people assist me in doing so, making unintentional harm or destruction even more difficult than with regular handguns and rifles. It would also require a stupendous amount of money to operate, arm and even own such a weapon, making it difficult for criminals or crime syndicates to operate them en masse.

In the case of automatic weapons, it would be difficult for the average citizen to master using them effectively even though they have a high rate of fire. Even submachine guns or medium-sized rifle calibers can be difficult to control or operate regularly, unless the average citizen has a significant amount of training with them. Automatic weapons for civilian consumption are extremely expensive and rare, compared to their semi-automatic clones, making their cost and rarity a significant deterrent to a ne’er-do-well.

The government owns hundreds — if not thousands — of artillery pieces, drones, machine guns, and nuclear warheads. The impact of civilian ownership, compared to the impact of government ownership, could be negligible if civilians have the correct laws and regulations in place to prevent unintentional harm or mistreatment. If we are to believe that the government no longer serves our best interests, maybe it could be good for Americans to own said weapons. Even if the cost of owning such weapons is completely unfeasible for the average citizen, this does not mean the average citizen has less of a right to have them. The Second Amendment was not drafted just to protect us from unlawful citizens, but also to protect us from an overbearing and potentially unjust government. It should be in the best interest of liberals, as well as conservatives, to defend the right to own any arms they desire, as the government could become tyrannical no matter who is in charge.

Disclaimer: This article is written as an article of satire. It is not reflective of the actual opinion of the writer.