Political Post: 2A and Firearm Control

          The article I chose was from The Daily Wire, a more recent news source with accurate representation and uses credible sources from other bigger, as well as more local, sources. This article is about a specific case, but in the larger picture, argues strongly for the Second Amendment to the United States' Constitution.
          This specific case mentioned in the article is a coverage of a suburb of Chicago, whose Village Board of Trustees recently passed a ban on "all assault weapons". If a citizen refuses to comply, they can be fined up to $1,000 a day. This ban also grants government officials the rights to confiscate and destroy the guns and magazines owned by (former) law-abiding citizens. This ban on "assault weapons" is actually a ban on all semi-automatic weapons with "assault-style features". The case for this is that it simply will only allow guns "designed for hunting" and other such activities, meaning that the overly-controversial Armalite Rifle 15 (AR-15) has been banned. However, none of the guns described in the ban are actually real assault weapons at all. They all have purposes in "hunting" and other recreational activities, while actual military-grade weapons ("assault weapons") are already banned or require extensive documents and licenses, including all fully-automatic and assault rifles and Personal Defense Weapons (PDWs). This new gun ban, if it is to be taken as what its creators say, is technically a violation of the Second Amendment, as the article by Amanda Prestigiacomo argues.
          Around the nation, the stance against guns is becoming increasingly popular, especially in the wake of a recent school shooting in Parkland, Florida. However, there are many groups of people that believe their Second Amendment rights are threatened. In the case of a ban on all guns, yes, it would be. In the case of a ban on all "assault weapons", it depends on the interpretations of the lawmakers as to what an "assault weapon" is. If they are to use the technical and definitive definition of an assault weapon, then lawmakers are not legally admitted to further push gun control as far as it has already gone, according to the Constitution.
          As far as gun control is concerned, it would not help further push the anti-criminal agenda on either side of the political spectrum. Making it harder for law-abiding citizens to defend themselves and their community, or even the government (as the Consitution is concerned), is not completely a violation of our rights, but it does not benefit society in any way. Criminals are, by definition, not law-abiding, and so they have all sorts of means of acquiring firearms even if more control is passed. In fact, it will help grow a criminal market for illegal weapons, while law-abiding citizens are left without a way to defend themselves against criminals with firearms. Gun bans and gun control are foolish ways to create a sort of "perfect, violence-free society", a utopia imagined by naïve citizens. As we've seen in history, especially modern history, a perfect society does not exist, and self-defense is the best way to counter it. Prestigiacomo creates a vague outline of these points as she refers to the case of a sad suburb.