By Jose Castillo.

Licensed to kill?

An X-45C Unmanned Combat Air Vehicle (UCAV) can fly at 35,000 feet over your head, and it is able to deploy a variety of deadly powerful payloads on its target without being detected.  There sure is nothing that a semi-automatic modified rifle can help you, an ordinary citizen, to defend against it if you were the target.

The second amendment of the constitution explicitly gives people the right to keep and bear arms. This right being more of a necessity in the presence of an oppressive government during a time in which wars were fought with rifles and cannons as men marched into the enemy’s line of fire. But this was over 200 years ago. It does not take a military expert to realize that the way in which wars are fought has changed dramatically since the revolutionary period.

There is no question that a gun can help you protect against an armed aggressor, but the idea that a group of citizens with rifles can defend against and overthrow an oppressive government in this day and age is preposterous.  Especially if governments have cutting edge technology and are at the front line of the development of weapons such as an UCAV.

Recent uprisings in the Middle East could prove the above statement wrong, but these uprisings were not started with the type of guns which are available to civilians in the United States.  It would be like comparing apples and oranges, and the apples have rocket propelled grenades, explosives, and the backing of a military might.

In retrospect, there is no question that there is a right for a person to own a gun, but rather how can tragic events like the Trayvon Martin shooting be avoided?  Concealed weapons laws in some states have recently been extended to grant a person the ability to carry a gun into a bar.  On September 2011 a law was passed in the state of Ohio allowing concealed-carry license holders to bring their guns into liquor-permit premises.

The now infamous stand your ground law in Florida and 20 other states has caused outrage after the delay of George Zimmerman’s arrest and that it might be the reason he will be acquitted during his trial over the Martin shooting.

It seems that the extension and broadening of gun laws are established as a response of the fear that an individual could be attacked and have no means to defend themselves.  Being shot is a legitimate reason to be afraid, but not enough to want to take an innocent life.

There are alternatives in protection such as non-lethal weapons, technology which even law enforcement agents use to avoid fatalities.  Tasers, rubber bullets, and maze are widely used in stopping offenders in situations that do not require deadly force.  Law enforcement agents are trained and qualified in using both methods and to know when lethal force is and is not necessary to stop a criminal, but ordinary people are not.

Efforts should be made by lawmakers to push for the use of non-lethal weapons as self defense mechanisms instead of broadening a person’s ability to carry a firearm in as many places as possible, and to use it under the protection of the law against unarmed people.  The more that this “right to bear arms” is expanded, the more it will conflict with daily life situations in which emotions run high, and literally deadly mistakes can be made.

It would be unfair and unrealistic to label all licensed gun-owners as trigger happy nuts who fear that the government will turn into a dictatorship.  However, it is a fair guess to say that you own a firearm because you are afraid for your own and your family’s safety.  Perhaps that was what George Zimmerman felt, he was afraid of a man stealing from his neighborhood, and made the fatal mistake to follow and confront him. It was prejudice, and it took the life of an innocent young man; a crime in itself trying to avoid a crime that did not exist.

So for those who fear that the government will take away their liberties, they should focus more on other powerful protections granted by the constitution such as their right to vote, to assemble, and the separation of powers to name a few.  Guns will not save your country but protecting the essence of your freedom and right to life will.  And to those who find safety in taking a firearm to church, you should be careful since you might look like you are trying to steal the offerings and someone might confront you with their own gun and shoot you in “self-defense”.

(Jose Castillo is a graduate of Aerospace Engineering from the Ohio State University and a writer for The Daily Journalist)