Guns have been a major source of disagreement in our country for many years now. As violence has increased, tempers have been fired up and the solution to our country’s problem seems more obscure than ever as people cling more tightly to their side of the argument. Despite my own political beliefs I believe that failing to try and understand the opposite side will lead us farther and farther from any possible solution. But this is an argument I struggle with greatly. These ideas are the driving force behind the conservative gun debate, and I do not understand them.

The Second Amendment: 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.

Guns (that are more powerful than needed for hunting) are needed for protection against the government.

Yes, the Second Amendment does say that gun ownership is necessary for the “security of a free state.” The intentions behind this wording makes sense…or it used to. A citizen militia might have been able to stand up to an oppressive government when the Constitution was first drafted. Unfortunately for us, that was 300 years ago and that government did not have the military capability ours does today. Personally, I don’t think citizens armed with assault rifles are going to have much of an impact on the U.S. military if the situation were to ever arise. So why do we feel the need to keep these powerful weapons accessible to the everyday person when they have no practical use?

Criminals will find a way to get weapons no matter what restrictions are put on them… They are criminals!

Yes, again. This is more than true. But does that mean that we shouldn’t make any effort at all to keep guns out of dangerous people's hands? Just because bank robbers are criminals will probably find a way to crack the safe, does that mean we leave the money sitting on the front counter? Just because crime happens on our streets when police aren’t watching, does that mean we don’t use a police force? There will always be ways around laws and security measures but that doesn’t mean we shouldn’t put them in place.

Democrats are trying to take all the guns away!

This is probably the argument that confuses me the most. When has any political leader mentioned this as a viable plan of action? I certainly haven’t heard it. And I’m glad, because it is a ridiculous idea. While guns can be dangerous, there are also many practical reasons to own one. Anyone trying to argue against hunting and personal protection would be out of their minds. And no one is arguing against those reasons for owning a weapon. Your guns aren’t going anywhere if you use them for the right reasons!

You can’t do that, it’s in the constitution!

I have several issues with this statement. One, as I mentioned before, the Constitution was ratified 300 years ago and the state of our nation has changed dramatically in that time period. All of the amendments are just that, amendments. Thankfully, our founding fathers realized that the law of the land may need to be fluid to adapt to changing times. This is not me saying that the second amendment should be changed or removed; I’m simply stating that this has happened to other parts as it became necessary. The constitution is not written in stone and should be left open to interpretation.

My second issue with this argument is, since when have the words of the Bill of Rights been interpreted as a total free-for-all? Even the First Amendment, arguably more important than the second because it is the first, has its restrictions. The First Amendment bars hate speech, libel and slander, child pornography, perjury, blackmail, true threats, and solicitations to commit crimes, to name a few. So why shouldn’t the second provide guidelines and rules as the first does?