Gun Control

Recently, I read an article from The Economist on the subject of gun control.  If you're interested in reading the article, here is the link http://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica/2012/07/gun-rights?spc=scode&spv=xm&ah=9d7f7ab945510a56fa6d37c30b6f1709

In this article the author refers to Justice Scalia's comments on the second amendment.  As a Justice, Scalia interprets the amendment in a very literal sense calling "bear" the idea of being able to wield a gun with your "bear" hands, so to speak.  This idea rules out the possession of say a tank or a fighter jet.  The original intent of the second amendment is to allow the citizens to prevent a tyrannical governmental takeover.  In today's world, the government military has possession of much better artillery than a handgun or even an AK-47.  Scalia suggests that if the second amendment is to live up to its' original intent, citizens should be aloud to own a tank or a rocket launcher.  I completely agree.  Of course, the way to go about doing this would be to amend the second amendment (which of course is very unlikely to happen).  Or, simply legalize the purchase of these military weapons!  Yeah, I'm sure this will go over well in the media...the simple fact of the matter is that the more of those who own guns, the less likely it is we will kill each other.  

The author goes on in this article and makes this point if we are to legalize all sorts of weaponry for purchase in the United States:  "And should those citizens decide to fully exercise such rights, then their second-amendment freedom will become the freedom to be attacked and crushed by the police and the US military, on behalf of those of us who support the integrity of the American government we have elected and the enforcement of its laws."  To which I say, very unlikely.  It is the citizenry which enacts such laws and protections.  It's an easy argument to make when you say everybody has a gun so we're all dead.  It's much tougher to make the argument that if we all have guns then we're all protected.  However, it is much easier for someone to attack an unarmed enemy than it is an armed one.  This notion has been proven on numerous occasions.  Namely, the cold war.