Gun control is one of the most controversial, hotly debated issues of our time. Proponents want to restrict gun use or possession in some way in the interest of public safety, while opponents of gun control stand firmly on principles of self-defense, civil liberties, and most importantly, the Second Amendment to our Constitution. The following is an argument for bans on assault weapons and large capacity magazines, special ammunition designed for extra lethality, mandatory background checks for gun purchases, and firstly, historical fact-check on how we’ve really used the 2nd Amendment in this country.

“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.” The classic interpretation seems clear. The first settlers of our nascent colonies needed protection from a hostile new world. Later on, as James Madison asserts in his Federal Papers 46, fear of a tyrannical federal government was pacified by the notion that the armed citizens of the nation would always be able to stand up possible future despotism. But after the founding of the country, these arms and militias found only sinister utility. American Slavery As It Is by Theodore Weld holds an important account of an armed militia being summoned to quell a slave rebellion. Only this report finds, later, the rebellion was never stirred to begin with. The lack of revolution at hand did not stop patrols of ordinary citizens from searching the homes of every slave, with a special attention paid to Bibles and books of hymns. Those found with the aforementioned texts were tortured, burnt, and mutilated for information by the militias, as were others suspected of conspiracy. In short, the Second Amendment played a chief role in the perpetuation of the institution of slavery.

But as many historians and students know, the oppression did not end with abolition, nor did the key place of guns in it all. The Post-Civil-War Reconstruction Era was one of the most miserable for African Americans, perhaps only next to slavery itself. And the armed gangs of thugs who harassed, destroyed the property of, and lynched or maimed blacks, could easily defend themselves as a “well-regulated militia”.

Again, The Second Amendment became the hand of oppression, and white supremacist mobs in the American South could continue to terrorize African Americans, and threaten their lives and communities should they decide to vote (even after winning suffrage, black males faced extreme, arduous trials at the hands of the white majority.)

This is not to say we don’t need guns. The self-defense argument is perfectly valid as it stands, a gun in one’s home for the protection of oneself, family and possessions/property. But how readily available the power to end a life is the real question. Compulsory background checks seem like the most easy point to drive home, just do as we’ve done with voters, make sure nobody is legally insane or a convicted felon. One opposed could argue that these checks are a violation of their right to privacy, or their right to bear arms as a whole. But should these rights really be inalienable to the criminal or the mentally unstable individual? The constitution does not provide a solution on its own. After the events of shootings at schools such as Virginia Tech or Sandy Hook, both perpetrators being afflicted by some type of mental disorder, it becomes clear why background checks are needed. Brutal shootings such as these also why assault weapons, special ammo, and large cartridges need to be restricted.

Simply put, these are designed to kill human beings, originally for military use, and are irrelevant for hunting or other sport purposes. Even with the prospect of a possible home invader, a machine gun spitting hollow-point or incendiary rounds is at the very least, overkill. The ready available-ness of such deadly weapons enables a heated confrontation to become a murder scene very quickly. Fights with knives, bludgeons or fists all leave room for both parties to get severely injured, and more importantly, the time to think about these consequences. With a loaded handgun in a car or holstered at the hip, one second of intense emotion, anger in an argument, can turn into lethal force. Should our constitution allow such ready access to the power to end a life?