Many Americans place great value on the Constitution and the intentions of the Founding Fathers.
While I respect them and the innovative system of government they were able to create, there is no reason to believe they could have foreseen every social, economic and technological development of the past 235 years.
One of their most contentious choices was the wording of the Second Amendment.
Most gun rights proponents take these words to mean the government cannot prohibit its citizens from owning firearms, but they miss the context entirely.
These words were written to ensure a well-armed militia in times of crisis and, depending on your interpretation, to protect a citizen’s right to overthrow an unjust government. But changes in our military have rendered both of these points moot in modern America.
The militia has morphed into the National Guard and the Army Reserve, but these organizations do not allow members to furnish their own firearms.
It is also absurd to believe a group of citizens armed with semi-automatic handguns and rifles could successfully overthrow our trillion-dollar military.
While I believe the Second Amendment is no longer relevant to the discussion, hunters and other lawful users of guns need not despair.
Even without the protection of the Second Amendment, a national firearms ban is as impossible and ill-advised as alcohol prohibition. The debate is not whether to sell guns. The debate is how to sell them responsibly.
Jared Loughner’s actions in Tucson, Ariz., and Seung-Hui Cho’s actions at Virginia Tech make the case for a reasonable increase in our nation’s gun-control laws, especially because they apply to the mentally handicapped.
Good-intentioned lawmakers and ardent gun supporters have completely misinterpreted the lessons of these tragedies.
The proposition from U.S. Rep. Peter King, R-N.Y., proposition to create an invisible no -gun bubble around lawmakers not only creates more legal problems than it solves, but also makes any attempt at gun control seem ridiculous by association.
Gun proponents argue gun- control laws are ineffective because criminals like Loughner can just buy illegal, unregistered guns.
But Loughner did not buy his GLOCK in a black market or back alley. He bought it from a Sportsman’s Warehouse.
Gun proponents are quick to point out the retailer did nothing wrong according to the law, which is absolutely true. But if our laws allow men like Loughner to obtain firearms, then our laws need to be changed.
Sportsman’s Warehouse required Loughner to fill out an ATF form 4473 for use in a background check, which included the questions “Are you an unlawful user of, or addicted to, marijuana,” and “Have you ever been adjudicated mentally defective?”
Should we trust men like Loughner to answer these questions honestly? Loughner, a known marijuana user, committed a felony by asserting he had never used marijuana, but his answer to the second question was technically accurate.
Despite being suspended from community college for posting a clearly deranged YouTube video accusing the school of genocide and torture, and being the subject of 51 pages of police reports including one warning, “there might be a mental health concern involved,” no legal action was taken to determine Loughner’s mental health.
Our screening system is clearly broken if it allowed a man with this kind of past to walk into two stores and walk out with a gun and extended magazine.
It is possible Loughner could have obtained these items illegally. But if he didn’t have a gun on Jan. 8, or if it could not hold 31 bullets, the death toll may not have been as terrible.
Dangerous people will always find a way to get guns.
Shouldn’t we be willing to accept minor inconveniences to possibly save innocent people from the bullets of a deranged gunman?
Andrew Shockey is a 20-year-old biological engineering sophomore from Baton Rouge. Follow him on Twitter @TDR_Ashockey.
 
—-
Contact Andrew Shockey at [email protected]