My Two Cents on Gun Control

I know this is a real hot button issue right now. With the tragedy at Sandy Hook Elementary School, the discussion on gun control was thrown into the forefront and has everyone at odds against each other, again. Now, I don't own a gun. I've never even touched one (except for those cool Nerf ones but those don't count). So this is from someone who really doesn't know much, if anything, about it all. (Note: I will probably use a lot of generalizations in this post. I recognize that not all Democrats and Republicans hold the same views as their party. But for ease of writing, generalizations will be used.)

From what I understand, Democrats are now wanting to ban magazines (the things that hold bullets, I think) that hold more than 15 rounds. The idea is that when some crazy wants to go on a shooting rampage, they won't be able to shoot as many people because they'll have to constantly reload. Or switch guns. This is also assuming the gunman came by their weapons legally, which could or could not be a good assumption. Criminals don't always gain their firearms legally. The gunman at Sandy Hook did use legally obtained firearms. Republicans and the NRA want no restrictions and would be happy if you didn't even have to submit to a background check. Okay, maybe they are fine with the checks, but they really don't want any restrictions on guns.

I can see why trying to keep guns out of bad people's hands is a good thing, just not really possible. Crazy people do crazy things. If someone has it in their head they're going to hurt someone, they're going to hurt them, no matter what. Having a magazine that only carries 15 bullets may or may not slow down a crazy. Personally, I don't think it really would.

Where I take issue is with the quote I heard today from a Democrat. I don't recall who said it, but it was a direct quote on NPR so it's legit. He basically said that restricting these guns was not against the Second Amendment because at the time of the Founding, all they had were muskets and bayonets. I guess the assumption was that if the Founding Fathers had known about these types of guns, they would have restricted them. Now the Second Amendment states thus: "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." How I see this is that we as a people are the check to the government. WE say whether the government has the power over us or not. We have the right to form a militia, because that's necessary for us to remain free. If the government starts strong-arming us, using its military might to force us, we have the right to bear arms and fight against that. I'm not advocating gathering guns and fighting against the government. As much as I disagree with a lot that's going on right now, it's not too out of hand. But if a Hitler or Stalin or some such were able to somehow take control, through a weakening of the Constitution here or there, how could they be checked? By US. By the people. The last thing a dictator or government wanting absolute power wants is an armed citizenry. So, how are we supposed to protect ourselves against the military, if the need ever arises, with only guns that hold less than 15 rounds?

I don't really know what the answer is. I would like people to never have to use a gun. I would like to never has a mass shooting ever again. But I don't think just taking it all away is good either.