Okay, people in the U.S. are not ready to give up entirely the Second Amendment. Why do we cling to it so hard? It seems to me we retain an irrational hope that our guns represent a freedom from oppressive and overbearing government. But we might as well advocate for a right to bare kitchen knives. They would be about as effective against the weapons of a modern army.
In fact, I wonder if replacement of the Second Amendment with a more realistic Amendment to protect the right of non-governmental ownership of military aircraft or weapons of mass destruction might be more acceptable in America. There would be, of course, be the danger that some rich nutcase might nuke Chicago. But guns kill almost that many people every couple of years as it stands, and Congress isn’t about to do anything about that.
Not only would the NRA be up in arms, so would be all those who own guns. So few of us realize that government is never going to try to take away our guns so long as we have the vote. Second Amendment or not. The vote is a much more potent threat to our government than our puny little guns will ever be.
But we would be terrified of letting the rich have a constitutional right to weapons of mass destruction. And justifiably so. The rich just might use them. But, such is exactly what people who have poor to average incomes do every day. They shoot other people.
That’s crazy. There’s a bit of a debate about whether guys like Omar Mejene, or whatever his last name is, ought be named or whether the shooters in mass murders should simply be called shooters. The guy I’m talking about is the shooter who killed forty-nine people inside the gay club in Orlando, Florida. Maybe we should just call them nutcases. After all, that is their defining, common, characteristic. Besides, they deserve no better notoriety. And, like it or not, many of the nutcases kind of like thinking of themselves as shooters. But they are really just nutcases.
And what about our irrational thoughts about being more ready to defend ourselves? We somehow think we are better able to defend ourselves if we have a gun. Bullshit! True, if you go to a gunfight, don’t take only a knife.
Better, by far, though, would be to go somewhere else. One virtually never knows he is going to a fight of any sort when he leaves the house. Besides, in a gunfight, the winner is almost always the one who gets off the first round. Having a gun in your pocket is not going to avoid a bullet.
As it stands now, in America, every fight involving adults, or, increasingly, young, almost adults, is likely to involve guns. The repeal or modification of the Second Amendment would do nothing to change that. It will take many years for America to shed itself of the insanity it bares. But we have to start sometime, or forever be crazy.
Meanwhile, owning a gun and having it in your home is statistically much more dangerous than not having one. For one thing, childhood shootings are very unlikely if there is no gun in the house. For another, depression is far less likely to be fatal if the only way to kill yourself is to drop some very obnoxious pill(s) or breathe some awful gas.
No, there is no rationality in supporting the Second Amendment any longer. Repeal it.