Skip to main content

As much as I'd like for it to happen, repealing the Second Amendment will never be a thing. Not in my lifetime, not in your lifetime. Likely never. A million Orlandos and a million Sandy Hooks can occur, and gun fetishists can rest assured knowing the amendment will remain intact. Gun ownership and the frustrating right to buy a gun has been secularly- and nearly biblically codified in the Bill of Rights, and is therefore untouchable. We simply take it as a given. 

It's a shame because it's evolved from being a necessary bulwark against armed rebellions and foreign invaders -- in the 18th and 19th Centuries, by the way -- to becoming a cynical marketing tool for the corporate firearm industry. It's nothing more than a handy-dandy bumper-sticker-length excuse for buying as many firearms as possible.

Regardless, as The Daily Banter's Tommy Christopher reported today, Hillary Clinton affirmed to CNN that, yes, owning a firearm is an individual right. 

Well, I think you have to read the entire decision. I believe law-abiding, responsible Americans have a right to own guns. But I also believe with the vast majority of Americans, there are common sense, constitutionally permissible steps we can take to take the guns out of hands of criminals. That is what Justice Scalia has said in Heller. I have disagreed with some of the ways they’ve applied that. There have been more than 23 shootings by a toddler this year alone. we have to sort through the decision. Yes, there is a right for law-abiding, responsible Americans to own guns and, yes, there are reasonable common sense measures to try to keep people safe from guns. We have to figure out the best way to move forward on that. That’s what I’m committed to doing.  

I agree. There's a right, insofar as it's enumerated in the Constitution. But it shouldn't be. Not today.

In fact, there's a thick menu of other consumer products and services that are more vital to individual liberty and survival than a gun. There's health care. As Bernie Sanders has repeated throughout the past year, enjoying affordable access to health care is a fundamental right. The right to survive illness or injury. There's transportation, allowing us to have the greatest possible opportunities, regardless of geography. Why wasn't an amendment passed to protect access to horses, then cars, railroads or air travel? We have access, sure, but is it a guaranteed right? Why isn't there an amendment to protect our right to safe food and clean drinking water? Given what happened in Flint, it seems necessary, yes? What about education? What about clothing? Logically speaking, guaranteeing adequate knowledge, nourishment and medical treatment that directly impacts our lives and personal health every second of every day seems like a higher priority than gun ownership on the off chance we have to thwart an attacker or to form a militia against government overreach. 

The gun industry gets a special carve-out. And the corporate CEOs and NRA lobbyists are vigorously exploiting that right to sell more guns domestically than there are people living in the United States. There's no other use, really, for the amendment other than to provide the industry with a convenient marketing jingle. 

Beyond that, there's no need for the Second. I'll begrudgingly accept that guns should be available to functional sociopaths who like to kill defenseless animals for fun and sport, and they should be available to trained users who need them for home protection (even though you're statistically less safe with a gun in the house). But tell me again why either of these not-so-important uses mandate the continued existence of a sacrosanct constitutional amendment, when other, more vital necessities aren't guaranteed. 

And if you parachute into the comments to tell me it's all about liberty from oppression, why the hell are you here and not out petitioning your government or running for office to tamp down its power before the tyranny begins? Seems to me as if militant anti-government gun people are preparing for the worst case, while ignoring hundreds of non-militant, legal and effective actions to take before a gun fired at a government agent will ever be necessary. 

I honestly can't help but to view modern gun enthusiasts as merely defending their right to a hobby. If accurate, it's difficult to accept the prioritization of such an objective over health care or clean water, but okay.

The Second Amendment has far outlived its practical purpose. Today, after 50 people who did nothing wrong other than committing the sin of having fun and being in love were gunned down using a consumer product that's designed for the sole purpose of taking or injuring lives, the deadly bastardization of the Second Amendment has been, once again, illustrated in the blood of the innocent.