The second Amendment - Rednecks in the dark ages

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.



With the recent ongoing in US Schools, many government officials and citizens alike are debating the value of the second amendment. Really now, is there really any modern relevance to something which was created to give the common free person the ability to stand up to an unjust rule or outside attack?

With the advancement in technology, does possessing a firearm really do anything for self preservation? After all, a foreign force need only press a button or release a computer virus to dramatically effect the security and financial well being of an individual, state or country. Now how is carrying a fucking handgun going to help against that situation.

Back in the 1700's when the second amendment was spawned, security concerns were much simpler in nature. A person comes onto your property to steal a horse, you shoot them. The south comes up to take over the north you shoot them. All these things currently the domain of the Police and Military. The need for a free man to protects ones' nation has pretty much been relegated to the middle east and other countries where civil unrest is rampant.

I'm pretty sure the creators of the second amendment had more honorable uses of the firearm in mind (As if shooting anyone could really be deemed as honourable.) Fact of the matter is, firearms have also changed since the signing of the second amendment. The single shot powder musket have been replaced by machine guns capable of killing entire families and classrooms with the simple press of a trigger.

Further to that, consider the effect modern video games have on the mind of a child. Filled with constant glorification of murder and desensifycation to violence modern video games are teaching our children that violence is cool and the spilling of blood is the ultimate goal in life.

All that in mind, is the recent increase in violent shootings in the US all that surprising? Yes, gang members and criminals shoot each other all the time... we are almost used to that. However, these shooting were different, the targets were random and the shooters insane.

Some argue, with the right to bear arms taken away, only criminals would have guns. Well, if that was the case, would the insane gunmen in these situations have been able to obtain weapons without the second amendment on their side?... Probably not. Sure the criminals would still have guns, gangsters would get wacked and a few unfortunate innocents would get caught in the crossfire, but would the right to possess a weapon really help the common innocent free person in a gangland shooting?