ArtsAutosBooksBusinessEducationEntertainmentFamilyFashionFoodGamesGenderHealthHolidaysHomeHubPagesPersonal FinancePetsPoliticsReligionSportsTechnologyTravel

One Mom's View on Gun Control

Updated on February 16, 2013

We Need to Protect Our 2nd Amendment

I am not a highly political person. My opinions about U.S. politics are usually kept to myself as I am a very firm believer in everyone’s right to their own opinion. Our country was built with this concept; we have freedom of speech and beliefs for a strong reason, it is how we survive and thrive as a nation. It is why I strongly believe in the 2nd amendment as well, “ The Right to Bear Arms”.

As a mother of two young children who attend school , I along with the rest of the country, grieved when 20 school aged children were gunned down by a horrific man in Newton, Connecticut. I remember seeing their pictures slide across my television screen, knowing it could have just as easily been one of my own children. My heart ached for the families and suddenly I feared for the safety of my own kids. My immediate thought…why can’t we put armed officers at our schools?

In recent years I have heard strong debates about classroom sizes, the need for more money, and more teachers. I would gladly place my daughter or son in a larger classroom in order to fund an armed officer. I would gladly pay higher taxes for an armed officer at my child’s school .

It doesn’t make sense to me that someone could fully believe that by taking guns from the law abiding citizens, we can prevent these crimes. Criminals don’t abide by the laws. When you limit our ability to protect ourselves you are creating a breeding ground for criminals. They no longer have to worry about robbing a home when someone is present because they will have a gun, and the homeowner will not.

Is this debate truly about gun control? Do we truly believe that by limiting our ability to buy large magazines, it will keep these out of criminal’s hands? The only thing this will do is create a very large black market. Our war against crime doesn’t become easier if we disarm ourselves. Our war becomes harder, we become weak.

Criminals do not read restraining orders.

Criminals do not fear you calling the cops.

Why I Support 'The Right to Bear Arms.'

I do not own a gun to hunt, I didn’t grow up in a hunting family, I do not own a gun to compete in any sport. I am a mother of two and I own a gun to protect my children. I have an alarm installed in my home, not because it calls the cops, but because it gives me time to grab my gun.

For Protection

When my husband works nights I do not sleep next to a phone, I sleep within a close proximity to a gun. Of course it is locked up for my children’s protection, but I will have access to it if I need it.

Criminals will get guns regardless of the laws our government imposes. The only harm that will be done by gun control is that we will be more vulnerable. We have outlawed drugs, yet drugs live and breathe on the streets of our large cities, our small towns, and our suburbs. We don’t have enough manpower to remove drugs from the streets, we don’t have enough man power to remove guns from the criminals now… won’t get easier with tighter gun control.

---Only months ago we were warned in my county that we would be losing officers and that more policeman will be laid off because of the lack of funds. My only comfort- I own a gun.

---What if ‘God Forbid’ there was war on this very soil, my only comfort to this- I own a gun.

---It has never been a question of whether or not I have faith in our law enforcement. My husband is a peace officer. I have faith in him. I have faith in my neighbor who is a member of the local law enforcement. I have faith in our military. I am, however, aware that we are among people without conscious, without care, people who hurt other people. I have faith that if a criminal enters my home I have the ability to protect my children- because I own a gun.

Why do I not support gun control? Not because I believe they will try and take all of our guns, but because when does it stop? If you take gun from a law abiding citizen you are not taking one from a criminal. Criminals are not lining up to turn in their illegal guns. If we give up our rights to guns….any of our rights, they win. The men who kill and hurt innocent people with firearms win. Our time needs to be spent elsewhere. We need to turn our focus into protecting our children, and getting these criminals off the streets.


    0 of 8192 characters used
    Post Comment

    • emilynemchick profile image

      Emily Nemchick 

      5 years ago from Phoenix, AZ

      This is a well-considered article and I can certainly see your point of view. As an Englishwoman, I was raised in a country where guns are illegal so I am naturally inclined to dislike the gun culture in America.

      Whilst I understand the feeling that guns provide protection, I feel that a culture which endorses guns is likely to breed a greater culture of gun violence. If you look at the people responsible for the tragic school shootings, the trend seems to be that of a maladjusted individual who has access to a gun rather than a dyed-in-the-wool criminal who would have a gun no matter what.

      I also feel that having a gun around invites accidents to happen. Just today I read an article about a young boy who accidentally shot his 2-year old sister and killed her. This could never have happened in a culture where guns were not a normal fixture in every household.

      Of course I respect an individual's right to take a different view, and your points were valid and well thought out. These are just my two cents.

    • Jack Burton profile image

      Jack Burton 

      5 years ago from The Midwest

      Good to see a woman think about guns with reason and logic instead of pure emotion.

    • RTalloni profile image


      5 years ago from the short journey

      An interesting read, including the comments. Good for you for speaking up and taking what comes for your position.

      Except for the case where war could break out on our own soil, you offer some ideas that are on target. However, to think that citizens could match a government's weaponry is not feasible, particularly in the context of today's sophisticated methods of war.

      While stories of partisans in other countries do show us that amazing battle victories can be won by small numbers of people with weaker weapons, they don't usually win the war. A private gun owner might temporarily delay the consequences of another country waging war on our own soil in some cases, but not for long.

      In an ideal world, war would be eliminated, but that's not going to happen any more than is true the inanely insane comment I read from a political figure last week, "criminals will lay down their weapons when they see that others are unarmed."

      The case where a government turns on its own people is what our right to bear arms is rooted in. Newspapers from the 1700s and documents quoting men like Washington, Franklin, Jefferson, Madison (see the Federalist Papers @

      , No. 46 as an example), Mason, Webster, Henry, Story, Hamilton, and more explain the concept and the need well.

      Today, it is through people working diligently by legal means that the right to bear arms in order to protect themselves and their families from criminals can be maintained. Yeste rday I heard that a recent move in Washington state to allow police to inspect private homes once a year for gun storage and impose amazingly stiff penalties for what they consider improper storage was defeated because someone was paying attention.

      Fragmenting the right to bear arms is a growing crusade and the goal of some is to destroy the right. Realizing the consequences of being unarmed when governments act to prevent increasing (and threaten to reduce) the number of police available to meet growing needs is pretty good motivation for supporting the right to bear arms.

      We will support those efforts or give up the right. Have you considered researching and writing about how to support the organizations and the legislators who are working to protect that right?

    • Sherri92 profile image


      5 years ago

      Awesome hub! I couldn't agree with more! :)

    • movingout profile image


      5 years ago from Georgia

      Interpretation. The debate to ratify the original was to control slavery. To arm, primarily southern militia to go plantation to plantaion (armed) to check slave for ammunition and arms. And if found to give 20 lashings to the slave found in possesion of the same. The 2nd ammendment can be interpreted if your for guns or against. Depends on who's reading it.

    • Mandeeadair profile imageAUTHOR


      5 years ago from California

      Well said tsadjatko....I'm seeing a well written article on this very subject in your future..... :).

    • tsadjatko profile image

      5 years ago from now on

      Changes to the second amendment? I was not aware that amendment had been changed at all. What the gun control lobby would prefer to do is get rid of it entirely. Originally they openly disputed that the Second Amendment conferred the right to own a gun. Their major policy goals were to make handguns illegal and enroll all U.S. gun owners in a federal database. The group now known as the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence was once known as Handgun Control Inc.; a 2001 book by the executive director of the Violence Policy Center was entitled Every Handgun Is Aimed at You: The Case for Banning Handguns. Contrast that with what you see today: Gun-control groups don't even use the term "gun control," with its big-government implications, favoring "preventing gun violence" instead. Democratic politicians preface every appeal for reform with a paean to the rights enshrined in the Second Amendment and bend over backwards to assure "law-abiding gun owners" they mean them no ill will. They've radically changed their message into one that's more appealing to Middle America and moderate voters.

      Their names and vernacular have changed but their goal has not,

    • movingout profile image


      5 years ago from Georgia

      Then perhaps we should eliminate all the changes over the years to the 2nd ammendment? And just what changes would our founding fathers approve of? Perhaps stricter gun control? Matter of interpretation at best or convenience for less gun control laws.

    • tsadjatko profile image

      5 years ago from now on

      You know what you say is just

      so sensible,

      well reasoned

      and practical...

      I'm curious...

      how long have you been an extremist?



    This website uses cookies

    As a user in the EEA, your approval is needed on a few things. To provide a better website experience, uses cookies (and other similar technologies) and may collect, process, and share personal data. Please choose which areas of our service you consent to our doing so.

    For more information on managing or withdrawing consents and how we handle data, visit our Privacy Policy at:

    Show Details
    HubPages Device IDThis is used to identify particular browsers or devices when the access the service, and is used for security reasons.
    LoginThis is necessary to sign in to the HubPages Service.
    Google RecaptchaThis is used to prevent bots and spam. (Privacy Policy)
    AkismetThis is used to detect comment spam. (Privacy Policy)
    HubPages Google AnalyticsThis is used to provide data on traffic to our website, all personally identifyable data is anonymized. (Privacy Policy)
    HubPages Traffic PixelThis is used to collect data on traffic to articles and other pages on our site. Unless you are signed in to a HubPages account, all personally identifiable information is anonymized.
    Amazon Web ServicesThis is a cloud services platform that we used to host our service. (Privacy Policy)
    CloudflareThis is a cloud CDN service that we use to efficiently deliver files required for our service to operate such as javascript, cascading style sheets, images, and videos. (Privacy Policy)
    Google Hosted LibrariesJavascript software libraries such as jQuery are loaded at endpoints on the or domains, for performance and efficiency reasons. (Privacy Policy)
    Google Custom SearchThis is feature allows you to search the site. (Privacy Policy)
    Google MapsSome articles have Google Maps embedded in them. (Privacy Policy)
    Google ChartsThis is used to display charts and graphs on articles and the author center. (Privacy Policy)
    Google AdSense Host APIThis service allows you to sign up for or associate a Google AdSense account with HubPages, so that you can earn money from ads on your articles. No data is shared unless you engage with this feature. (Privacy Policy)
    Google YouTubeSome articles have YouTube videos embedded in them. (Privacy Policy)
    VimeoSome articles have Vimeo videos embedded in them. (Privacy Policy)
    PaypalThis is used for a registered author who enrolls in the HubPages Earnings program and requests to be paid via PayPal. No data is shared with Paypal unless you engage with this feature. (Privacy Policy)
    Facebook LoginYou can use this to streamline signing up for, or signing in to your Hubpages account. No data is shared with Facebook unless you engage with this feature. (Privacy Policy)
    MavenThis supports the Maven widget and search functionality. (Privacy Policy)
    Google AdSenseThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
    Google DoubleClickGoogle provides ad serving technology and runs an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
    Index ExchangeThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
    SovrnThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
    Facebook AdsThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
    Amazon Unified Ad MarketplaceThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
    AppNexusThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
    OpenxThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
    Rubicon ProjectThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
    TripleLiftThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
    Say MediaWe partner with Say Media to deliver ad campaigns on our sites. (Privacy Policy)
    Remarketing PixelsWe may use remarketing pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to advertise the HubPages Service to people that have visited our sites.
    Conversion Tracking PixelsWe may use conversion tracking pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to identify when an advertisement has successfully resulted in the desired action, such as signing up for the HubPages Service or publishing an article on the HubPages Service.
    Author Google AnalyticsThis is used to provide traffic data and reports to the authors of articles on the HubPages Service. (Privacy Policy)
    ComscoreComScore is a media measurement and analytics company providing marketing data and analytics to enterprises, media and advertising agencies, and publishers. Non-consent will result in ComScore only processing obfuscated personal data. (Privacy Policy)
    Amazon Tracking PixelSome articles display amazon products as part of the Amazon Affiliate program, this pixel provides traffic statistics for those products (Privacy Policy)