We are always discussing Amendment II to the United States Constitution and the right to bear arms.  Especially, after horrific events take place like the recent school shooting in Winder, Georgia.  There are, of course, too many of these shootings and something must be done to prevent them.  The discussion, therefore, centers around how to restrict the ability of these shooters to obtain guns.

Amendment II says simply, “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.”  You can find this at: www.archives.gov/founding-docs/bill-of-rights-transcript.  Although this is a straightforward statement, it does say that the right concerns a well-regulated militia.  Yet, there is no explanation of what is meant specifically by this, so the Supreme Court has determined that it means we all have this right to bear arms under any conditions.

Some states in the union do, however, have certain limitations.  And there are now, and have been, federal restrictions in place.  But current restraints seem to have done little to stop the progression of, and increase in, these horrific events.  There was a restriction placed on owning certain types of guns in 1994 that lasted through 2004.  It was better known as the assault weapons ban.  During this time data on the ban was interpreted as helping reduce, increase, and be of no effect on gun crime.  This information can be found at: www.factcheck.org/2013/02/did-the-1994-assault-weapons-ban-work/.  So why was it so hard to prove?  High-capacity magazines and their effect on the outcomes.

So, is there anything at all that can be done to keep our children safe, if not ourselves?  It certainly would be nice if the whole country had the same feeling that this was important.  But can it be important to those that continue to complain about taking away some of their gun rights with new legislation?  Is it important to those that talk about the rights of children to have every chance to be born into this world by eliminating Roe v. Wade, contraception options, and other means to protect a mother’s health?  Is it only important until the child is born?

What about Amendment I to the United States Constitution?  It reads: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”  These are sacred rights.  But this Amendment only talks about making no law to abridge these rights.  What about a law to protect these rights?

How is the right of a child, and later an adult, to freedom of speech protected if the child is not around to have that right?  Do we care about these rights if we don’t do anything to prevent our citizens, all citizens, from the loss of their life or their ability to enjoy these rights?  Is this a kind of oxymoron that we wish didn’t exist?  People pass in many ways.  Accidents exist.  Mistakes happen.  Sometimes just being in the wrong place at the wrong time can be fatal.  These events are unalterable.  But what about doing something that can minimize the violence we see happening almost every day to our neighbors, friends, and family?

Of course, in the long run, it’s all up to us.  That’s what is good about democracy.  We all have a say.  We can vote against those that do not represent us and vote for those that do.

It’s funny how some on both sides of the aisle seem to go along with much of their party platform no matter what their constituents desire.  None of us should vote along party lines.  If we do, without thinking on our own, then we truly create us-versus-them scenarios.  We can declare a party in primaries, to vote for a base of people from which we can choose during the election.  If we find these candidates aren’t really working for us, though, we can vote in the regular election for an alternate candidate who is.

In a democracy, we have the freedom to do almost anything we want.  But, as we talked above, and in some other circumstances, we need to have others in mind.  It seems to me that it would be a very miserable world if we all thought alike.

With that in mind, I would like to thank Mr. Roberts who wrote an opinion piece in the Rochelle News-Leader Sept. 8.  His viewpoint is a bit different from mine and it was good to see him express his own thoughts.  I encourage others to do the same.  We need to hear all sides.  That’s how we develop our own positions.  And isn’t it great that we have an alternative to doing so in our local newspaper rather than online?