The Second Amendment

I’m Canadian. Canada has a very different relationship with guns than the United States does. Our farmers and hunters may have a long gun or two, and we’ve got some target shooters, but in general, law-abiding Canadians avoid firearms. They’re just not part of our culture. So there are some things I just can’t quite understand.

The second Amendment to the US Constitution confirms “the rights of the people to keep and bear arms.” The US Supreme Court has confirmed that these rights extend beyond any rights associated with serving in a state militia.

This right isn’t limited to simple handguns and hunting rifles. It includes all sorts of truly dangerous weapons with awesome firepower. It includes automatic rifles, machine guns and such things as armor piercing ammunition. Just about any kind of arms are legal to own in the U.S.

So, isn’t it a little hypocritical, that a country that believes in the legal right of all its people to possess dangerous weaponry - tries to block OTHER countries having nuclear weapons?

Don’t get me wrong. I agree with nuclear non-proliferation. I don’t want to see Iran or North Korea with nuclear capability. But that’s because I don’t believe everyone should have the unfettered right to own lethal weapons.

Not quite getting the connection? Okay, here it is: I don’t see a significant difference between guns, bombs, and nuclear weapons. The only difference I see is the SIZE of the kill.

The semi-automatic handgun Jared Lee Loughner allegedly used in Tucson, Ariz., to shoot Representative Gabrielle Giffords and 19 other people, had an extended munitions clip that can fire 33 rounds without being reloaded. That gun can kill as many people in one incident as a bomb. So, why is that gun legal, but a bomb illegal?

I read an article that said that after that shooting in Tuscon, the sale of guns went up in the US. It makes sense. If there are other people running around with guns, you want to have the right to protect yourself and your family. But doesn’t the same logic apply to Iran wanting nuclear weapons if the US and France and Israel and China and India, and Pakistan and the list goes on - already have nuclear weapons?

Yes, banning the proliferation of nukes which I support will make us safer. But that same argument can and should be made to stop the proliferation of guns in the US where it is estimated that there are over 300 million guns. If just one TENTH of ONE percent of those are used to kill, that’s substantially more deaths than Hiroshima and Nagasaki combined.

If you believe “guns don’t kill; people do“, then you should likely buy “nuclear weapons don’t kill; people do.” But for the sake of my family I don’t buy either argument. If it was YOUR 9 year old daughter who was killed in Tuscon, would you care that it was with a gun or explosives or a nuclear blast that took her from you? I know I won’t.

So I say, stop the madness. That goes for nuclear weapons AND guns.