I wrote about the killer on the campus of Northern Illinois University the other day.

Someone named John commented thus:

A crazy or the hidden whackos who suddenly snap will use a gun, knife, sword, axe, bomb, fire or what ever is available on hand to kill with. If one of the students hand a gun in that lecture hall maybe the shooter’s body count would be a lot lower than it was. Private ownership of guns is a basic right of every American. When we lose that right we lose our liberty.

It’s an interesting position. In my original post, and comment, it seemed as though I was opining that I believe that people should not have the right to guns. I like playing Devil’s Advocate a lot, you learn a lot about different opinions. John’s is fair enough, and in a certain sense he’s absolutely spot on. Losing the right to fight for your beliefs, especially against a tyrannical government (which incidentally was probably why they enshrined the right in the constitution), is the loss of absolute liberty.

I don’t espouse sedition, rebellion, or insurgency. I do espouse freedom and the right to speak my mind. Having the right to fight for that literally is the last step before that can be taken from you. In a way, the UK has come nearer and nearer the edge of fascism recently, it is becoming a surveillance state - because of this I do think of the US as more “free”.

Here’s the thing though; the Constitution, as wise as it is and its framers were, was written in a time when there were muskets, and where monarchies were tyrannical in nature. It could not possibly predict today’s framework of government and technology.

It does seem to me, to be prudent to remove guns from, or disallow ownership of weapons by, psychologically-challenged individuals. As has been proven recently, giving such people guns is a bad situation to be in.

Moreover, from my own experience living the US (where incidentally I owned guns), I believe the vast majority of people, younger people especially, do not own, or want to own, guns. With the feeling that society is more safe because of strong police forces, why would they want to carry a gun with them? Is the US any different from say, Canada? France? Germany? Greece? All western countries yet the US is the only one where you can get easy access to guns. I wonder - who has the highest murder rate? (that’s a rhetorical question, the answer is the US)

It seems to me that in this day and age, people would not need to own weapons to protect themselves from overly tyrannical government or monarchy. That being said, the opposite would be true in one-party states. The US however is not that. People can change their President with the vote, like most of us can (the vote is indeed, a more powerful weapon in the long run, wouldn’t you agree).

The Constitution might just have run its course with the right to own guns. Surely there must be restrictions placed on such a right? The insane should not own guns, the psychologically unstable, the felon, the immigrant (who is not a citizen), the list goes on. Are these not reasonable restrictions? Guns do not equal liberty - they are merely a weapon against its removal.