A lot of people are interested in gun control these days, as well they might be, given the demonstrations of certain guns’ murderous efficiency to which we have been subjected in the past few weeks. Calls for gun control followed by the defensive postures of pro-gun lobbyists such as the National Rifle Association become almost automatic.
Before long, though, unless more killings are committed with guns, the noise dies down on both sides, and little seems to change.
This time, that may not be the case. The president of the United States is showing an interest in pushing for gun control, and he seems to have some backing from Congress, although it remains to be seen whether today’s verbal support will be followed by votes that would drop the Second Amendment from the Constitution, or alter it. That seems doubtful.
Yet, like any of the constitutional amendments, there are always questions of scope. How broadly can language that was written in the early days of our republic be interpreted? Also, just because something was put into the Constitution at one time because it seemed like a good idea doesn’t necessarily mean it stayed a good idea. Prohibition, for example, comes to mind.
Just because the Second Amendment may be secure right now doesn’t mean it will be in the future. Present interpretations may change.
If and how they change will depend a lot on gun owners and how they behave. Do ordinary civilians really need guns that mimic weapons of war, especially when such guns fall into the hands of idiots who use them to kill children or other helpless people?
Gun owners need to do a lot of self-searching and come up with some workable, problem-solving ideas or else they risk being taken to the cleaners by those seizing an opportunity.