Doing the right thing sometimes isn’t easy. Much like water, people have a natural tendency to choose the path of least resistance, taking the easiest route to reach their goal.

In some sort of ironic twist, man has the ability to make choices on which path to follow. Man also has the ability to create dikes, dams, levees and lakes to control the path of nature.

I’m not getting all Zen or anything, I’m using this as kind of a metaphor for life and how government regulations divert and control the natural flow of life.

Although the man-made objects corral the water, there is a certain amount that still follows the path of least resistance. Regulations will always apply to everyone, but with regulation there is always a small section that decide the rules do not apply to them, and then themselves, take the easy way.

So do regulations help keep some sort of order in the world? Or does it create a world that pits right vs. wrong? Or is it a little of both?

Here is my logic, skewed or otherwise: If there were no regulations to break, there would be no right or wrong way to do something. Easy enough, right? Well, hold on a minute, this is where a person's moral fiber comes into play. If the way I’m doing something that causes harm, I feel it, I inherently know that this isn’t the right way. Why? Because that is how I was raised and its in my human nature.

There is a part of the population that will not feel the same.

Humans regulate themselves to a certain extent. Somewhere along the line we felt the need to write these feelings of right and wrong down, because for some strange but true reason, it makes them real. Rules to help regulate society, finance, utilities, industry and the list goes on and on. They were not created, in my opinion, for people who do the right thing, they are created those who don’t. They’re guidelines for both the law abiding citizen and the ones who catch the citizens who aren’t.

Gun control is a big topic and media is bombarding people with two basic agendas. Pro- and anti-gun activist both hold a position on the issue, which is brought to light every time there is a tragic event that involves a gun. Being someone who sometimes is accused of sitting on the fence on issues, I can say the benefit is you can see both sides of the issue. Not saying that I have the answers, but I can say an answer lies somewhere in the middle.

I also have to remind myself that the Second Amendment was adopted in 1791 and guns have advanced a long way since then. I’m sure if the weapon of choice then was an AK-47 and not a musket that took several seconds to load and was not real accurate, the Second Amendment might read a little differently.

I feel there is nothing wrong with owning a gun. I know plenty of people who enjoy shooting them, collecting them and selling them. Guns can be a passion to a person, just as much as anything else. These people I know do things the right way, not just because its the law, it is common sense.

I also see a need for tightening up the loopholes that allow guns to fall into the hands of someone whose intent is to harm other humans. Like the dams and dikes, tougher regulations will still have no bearing on someone who takes the path of least resistance in getting a gun. I believe the slogan, “Guns don’t kill people, people with guns kill people” really says it all.

The bad behavior gives people who do things the right way a bad name. It doesn’t matter if it using guns, four-wheeling, hunting without landowner's permission, cheating at checkers or what have you, it ruins it for everybody else.

It's been a battle that has been fought as long as there have been civilized people. A battle of right and wrong or good and evil. As far as regulations go, there will always be those who abide and those who don’t.

Dwight Collins is a Camden Herald reporter.