The Second Amendment made more sense at the time it was written

opinion@dailylobo.com

We all live in the same nation, and it would make sense that we work together to come to an equitable solution about guns.

American discourse doesn’t always have to be focused on which side screams the loudest. It shouldn’t be confined to small-scale intellectual debates that usually involve reposting hyperbolic propaganda on Facebook.

I mean, people do realize the children of the president of the United States are kind of a case that needs different handling than most kids, right? There’s a slippery slope of arguing to be made in regard to how the children of the leader of our nation are handled. Obama’s kids’ school has armed guards, so why doesn’t mine? Obama’s kids live in the White House; why can’t mine?

Obama’s kids are an interesting facet of national security, and it certainly could undermine American credibility if they were kidnapped or murdered at school. It would lend credibility to any terrorist group that did it, and fuel terrorists’ resolve for more attacks — but what about my kids?

It may not be a good idea to always follow the wisdom of the Founding Fathers, who on one hand proffered the thought that every American had the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, and on the other hand disenfranchised women and those without land, allowed slavery and committed to a policy of genocide against the Native Americans. I’m not saying they were bad guys all around; they did give us the puffy powder wig, a style that lives on to this day. But they also strike me as the type who considered shooting someone in the face as a valid form of action in most cases. I’m just saying mostly it was a different time, and these forward-thinking legislators of violence left the Constitution malleable for a reason. Because maybe someday slavery would be passe, women might become a part of the political process and shooting people in the face wouldn’t need to be an inherent right.

So let’s just keep an open mind in the discourse. Let’s not get stuck on dogma from days passed. We all know the Founding Fathers wanted the Second Amendment to allow militias to prevent future tyranny with armed insurrection. The problem is that in this day, the majority of the slobs I see with guns couldn’t insurrect their way out of a paper sack with a gun in each hand and a cannon firing from their a**hole. So we can’t look to past ideals to guide us through our modern world. We need to keep the debate germane to our modern world. And that’s what I want to do: add some modern-world perspective to the debate.

I do support the idea that the citizens of a nation should be free to own guns. I’m just not sure I support the idea that every citizen of this nation should be free to buy guns. I shouldn’t have to tell people to look around at your fellow citizens to know this. We should all be sufficiently abhorrent of our current society to know this.

We live in a nation where a pair of new shoes also includes in the box a small packet of silica gel for moisture control, with a warning not to eat it, which is a shame, because I know people are always finding snacks in their shoe purchases. Just bought that fresh set of red kicks and opened the box — “Oh, a delicious cupcake.” Do people who need to be warned not to eat things found in shoeboxes need the right to own a gun?

This is a nation that has propelled television shows about Sasquatch and “Ancient Aliens” to the forefront of the American consciousness. And those are on the History channel and the Discovery channel. This is a nation that has popularized shows such as “Here Comes Honey Boo Boo,” “Amish Mafia,” “Storage Wars,” “Hardcore Pawn” and “Ice Road Truckers.” Do the people who have turned these shows into money-making enterprises need the right to have guns?

This is a nation where people go to malls to purchase on impulse every stupid thing that can be packaged prettily for them. Off to get that new Brazilian taint scraper at the House of Body Care while your kid goes to buy new goth clothes at Bloodbath and Beyond, grabbing an $8 cup of coffee on the way out and — oh wait — I forgot to pick up that AR-15 with the 9,000 round clip. Yes, these are the people who need quick, easy access to firearms.

There’s the compelling argument out there that new laws regulating guns are worthless, that criminals don’t follow laws and that a motivated killer isn’t going to be stopped by a rule. I agree with that, but not just to the point it supports my view. A criminal is going to be stopped by a guard, but not a law? That must be why banks are never robbed: you know, the inadequate law backed up by an armed guard. Every maniacal killer ever would have been stopped by an armed guard. Surely they’re walking toward the school intent on slaughtering children, but the thought of having to kill one more person suffices to stop them.

If no law stops a killer or criminal, why would an armed guard help more? Do we really want armed guards at our schools, anyway?

Flooding our schools with probably the only people who couldn’t get a job grabbing a** for the TSA all day. How certain are we that this shallow end of the job pool won’t be more dangerous for our kids than random nut jobs? The only time they won’t be moments away from shooting our kids is when they are trying to be moments away from having sex with them. I’m not sure armed guards are the solution even if Obama’s kids get them.

Killers aren’t stopping for guards or metal detectors. And guns aren’t stopping either, and that’s truly why I don’t engage in the debate too much, because guns in the U.S. are rooted in the very thing Americans seem to honor more than God, guns and guts: money.

Profit and politics go hand in hand. And this is a nation of Christians who love them some God, a Christian nation that feels its religious freedoms are being trampled because they can’t firebomb a mosque.

All the time constituents are wound up and divided between things that will not change, such as government aid and religion in schools. Why? Because the argument is the point now. It fuels profit for anyone who can make a profit. And votes are a profit.

One side says vote for me and I’ll save your guns. One side says vote for me and I’ll moderate guns. In Washington, D.C., politicians accept lobby money from both sides of the gun debate.

When has a politician ever enacted laws that pull votes and money from his pocket? The short answer is never. And they never will.

Guns in America will end as soon as the debate does, which is never.

Any gun-related company eats this up because it fuels profit — profit to buy politicians and prolong the debate. Every time the debate rages, people race off to buy up guns, ammo, holsters, gun safes and all the other accessories. Money pours in, this legally tendered God of America, and for that fact alone things will never change. Want proof?

Consider this past weekend’s Gun Appreciation Day. The Internet was flooded with it. Where did they ask these people to show their support? At city hall? State capitols? The White House? No. At gun stores, gun ranges and gun shows, which is equivalent to holding Overweight Appreciation Day at McDonald’s. I wonder how many millions of dollars in gun-related sales happened on this day of appreciation? What a racket.

Guns aren’t going away and neither is the debate, but maybe we can hope for civility and discourse in a nation full of right-thinking Americans who also watch Honey Boo Boo.