Gun control is once again all the rage in the halls of the United States Congress. While there are serious issues the U.S. needs to address in terms of gun control, legislators instead quibble over a ridiculous middle ground.

But such is the nature of our supposedly two-party system. Neither party has the cajones to stray too far from the middle, for fear of losing popularity with the public.

Both parties also feel they have a responsibility to the Constitution, which clearly states that Americans have the right to bear arms. While unwavering faith in the Constitution may paint a pretty picture of patriotism, in practice it is rather ridiculous.

The U.S. Constitution, like any historical document, must be understood in terms of the context in which it was written. Trying to interpret a 200-year-old plus document in terms of today’s society is ludicrous.

But the right to bear arms in this country goes back even further than the Constitution. In fact, few things have played such an essential role in the development (or exploitation) of this country than the gun.

When the first English settlers arrived at places like Jamestown, negotiations with Native Americans were fairly peaceful. But as more and more people arrived and the settlers forced their way onto more Indian land, the gun was what allowed them to do so.

The settlers were horribly outnumbered and completely unfamiliar with their environment, but their guns allowed them to massacre large numbers of natives.

Shortly thereafter, floods of white indentured servants and black slaves began to flow into the new world. Rich white landowners realized that if the indentured whites and black slaves joined together in a revolt, they would have no way to stop them.

So indentured whites were armed in order that they might protect their masters against possible revolt by the black slaves. It was, of course, illegal for black slaves to own guns.

The specific laws governing guns varied from colony to colony. Essentially, though, guns were meant to be protection for rich, white landowners against Indians and slave revolt.

All this when there was no Constitution and only limited enforcement of British law. There were gun control laws in this country before there was even a country.

No one doubts that the American Revolution would not have been won if most every adult white male had not owned a gun. So it is understandable why the framers of the Constitution would want to keep a well-armed militia in the future.

The early days of the American frontier were very dangerous. Conflicts between Native Americans, whites and blacks were so common that it is not hard to see why guns were so prominent a fixture. It is also not hard to see that economic disparity was a major reason for a number of the conflicts. That is why the lawmakers of the time, rich white men, passed laws that would ensure that they were well-armed when someone tried to take their plantation.

But are the insecurities of rich white landowners from over 200 years ago still justification for self-armament in this country? I think not.

Many Americans are proud that our Constitution has persevered as long as it has. Indeed, it is one of the oldest binding legal documents in the world. While some people consider this a credit to the vision of the founding fathers, I think it’s more of a sign that we need to move forward.

Every few years, the exact same debate on gun control comes up. We’ve heard it all before, hunters and sportsmen need guns, if we regulate guns only the criminals will have them, no one should have semi-automatic weapons, blah, blah, blah. The debate doesn’t go anywhere because there aren’t any teeth to it.

Waiting lists, background checks and limited bans don’t do a damn thing. All they do is make Democrats look liberal without completely alienating more conservative voters.

If we want to control guns in this country, we have to acknowledge that all the logic around the right to bear arms in this country is horribly out of date and ban all guns. We have to say to even the most mild-mannered of outdoorsmen, “I don’t care if hunting is your hobby; allowing you to engage in your hobby provides a loophole that gets people killed.”

Many people believe banning all guns is ridiculous, because there are so many guns in this country — and they’re probably right. But the problem is rooted more in the fact that we’ve only had wishy-washy, middle-of-the-road politics for so long in this country that we’ve forgotten we have the ability to make radical changes.

Who even knows if banning guns would make a difference in the level of crime in this country. Depending on who you ask, statistics will support any hypothesis. The only way we will ever know if it makes any difference is if we try, and legislators seem reluctant to do even that.

I don’t even necessarily advocate these radical gun reforms, but I do think that more people would be in favor of them if legislators didn’t insist on adhering to flawed 200-year-old logic.

Slave revolts and Indian raids are issues of the past. Let’s focus on issues that exist today when we weigh the pros and cons of gun ownership.

---

Ben Godar is a junior in sociology from Ames. He is arts and entertainment editor of the Daily.