Killing, Made Easy

     Guns don't kill people, people kill people. Right? We don't have a gun problem, we have a problem with bad people. Guns can't be the problem.... Of course not.
     Over the last few months, we have seen mass hostage situations, children shot both accidentally and intentionally, and active shooter scenarios in schools across the country. But still, we cling to our "constitutional" right to bear arms of all kinds. The government had better not take away our assault rifles, because the constitution says we can have them. Or does it?
      Let's take a hard look at the reason for the amendment and the types of weapons that should be protected. Do we need assault weapons for the masses? Let's take a look...

      The second amendment guarantees citizens the right to bear arms, yes, but that right should not be unconditional. The amendment was written solely with protection in mind. The right to bear arms was intended to protect the people and ensure the "security of a free state." In the middle of a revolution, this made sense. Who knew what shape the government would take? The people wanted to be protected. But times have changed. A few thousand people, even with assault rifles, could not even make a stand against the U.S. military if the need arose. Protection against the government is unrealistic at best. The main reason for the creation of the second amendment no longer holds water.
     But, you say, what if someone breaks into my house? How am I going to protect my family? Experts agree that the best firearms for personal protection are handguns and shotguns. Not assault rifles. Single, controlled shots from a handgun or a single blast from a shotgun is more than enough to deter any thief or potential assailant. The last thing your family needs is for you to open fire with a semi-automatic weapon in the middle of your house.
     I have even heard the argument that assault rifles are just so much more fun to shoot... Ok, really? Is having fun unloading a clip really worth making assault weapons readily available to anyone and everyone? I think maybe we could sacrifice some "fun" in order to try to protect our families and children.
     Probably the most appealing argument for me is that opposing gun restrictions is a matter of principle, that we can't let the government take the next step in taking away our freedoms. But is this reasoning any more valid? Yes, we would sacrifice a little bit of freedom in giving up assault rifles, but the long range benefits far outweigh the inconvenience. Especially as Christians, we should value the future of our children higher than our attachment to our guns. Our children are the salt and light to the next generation, lives that deserve to be protected, even if it costs a little "freedom."
     Believe me, I understand that logistically, taking assault weapons off the streets is a huge uphill battle. But that doesn't mean we shouldn't try. By all means, keep your handguns, shotguns and hunting rifles... But let's not make mass killing easier than necessary.