The Second Amendment

The Second Amendment to the United States Constitution reads, "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

The debate surrounding the necessity of an armed populace is easily older than the Second Amendment.  It has produced much controversy, and lies at many the heart of a voter's principles.  As this is the second request I've had from the readers, this topic took me a good while (real life factors notwithstanding) to research and prepare.  As with past topics, I will summarize the arguments for and against the right for individual citizens to bear arms, and at the end offer my viewpoint.

To begin, I will speak on how the Second Amendment fits into history.  The right to bear arms is inherited (like much of our culture and law) from our English beginnings.  Fresh from a war with Britain, wherein many a regular citizen farmer took up his trusty hinting rifle to combat an often more well-equipped and professional army, it was completely understandable that the average American would have full license to keep and use weapons to repel invaders, self-defense, and hunting.

As time progressed and America came to further industrialize and urbanize, and state police came into a more recognizable form, the prevalence of a gun existing in each household began to drop dramatically.  Of course, this does not mean that the laws and debates surrounding the issue have weakened any.  In 2008 and 2010, the Supreme Court ruled that an individual was allowed to bear arms even if unconnected to any militia, and that any limits propounded by the Second Amendment have equal effect on both the State and Federal Government (District of Columbia v. Heller and McDonald v. Chicago, respectively).

The rest of the legislation concerning militia and gun ownership stretches from the founding fathers in the Federal government up until today to many state superior courts, and to comment on them all would bury this topic in legalese and suffocating minutia.  So, I will conclude this portion by saying that it is currently legal for individuals citizens to bear arms.

The moral arguments for gun ownership are varied and passionate.  I will list and explain some of the most popular.  The first is that an armed populace is a free populace, only slaves aren't allowed to carry weapons.  Often, the first thing a dictator or tyrant does to disarm the people so as to prevent any insurrection or rebellion.  A second argument is that if citizens can't defend themselves with legal access to firearms, criminals will surely pose an unconquerable threat by having access to illegal weapons.  It is often said that an armed neighborhood is often the most safe; if you know your opponent has a gun, it is much less attractive to attack their house.  In addition, it is much less likely a postal office or supermarket will be robbed if everyone is armed.

The most prolific defense of gun ownership is that restricting such an activity is unlawful, unethical, and unnatural.  Firearms, with some more extreme exceptions, are the only weapons to be outlawed in this country.  Certain weapons such as swords, bows, and other archaic arms are illegal to carry out on the street, but they are not illegal to purchase and display at one's house.  Guns, in many degrees of calibur, ammunition size, rate of fire, and general level of destructiveness have many restrictions placed on them.  Only with the invention of such weapons have the laws prohibiting them been put in place.  Supporters of the Second Amendment ask why it is suddenly appropriate to outlaw these weapons just because they are more advanced than a sword or bow.  Knife crime is a testament to the argument that outlawing guns will not stop violent crime.  Escalation is also an argument purported by supporters of gun ownership; if the government can outlaw guns and knives, what is to stop them from outlawing hammers, bats, chainsaws, crossbows, etc.?

An additional argument for gun ownership is that some the restrictions placed on guns are ineffective; outlawing the possession of firearms within 1500 feet of a school will only spur a criminal to purchase a weapon that is capable of accuracy at 1600 feet.  One can outlaw guns capable of accuracy at a 1600 foot range, but that very well might increase the black market demand for guns of that capability; a veritable arms race can very well ensue.

Some arguments for gun control (restrictions on gun ownership up to outlawing them completely) are as follows.  The Second Amendment does not specify which guns are allowed to citizens; handguns are one thing, but fully automatics and RPGs are much different.  It is here that many Second Amendment supporters as well as opponents agree.

Many people who are pro-gun control argue that guns, due to their inherent danger, cause more damage than good in cases of self-defense.  Many studies have been conducted which say how gun ownership increases the likelihood of homicide within the homestead.  These studies extend to information on suicide as well.

A large argument for gun control is that the likelihood of a tyrannical government overtaking America is so incredibly slim, that the need for an armed populace is unnecessary.  Another Hitler, Stalin, Mao, or like-minded figure would have a difficult time getting support from the populace or leverage against the military.

Much of gun control arguments are just that, gun control.  Many people do not wish to see guns completely outlawed.  Use in sport or hunting are viable options that don't end in death or injury very much at all.  Certain deterrents to crime such as instant background checks, ID tagging, wider gun education, and stricter punishments for gun crime, are currently being lobbied for.  If the guns can be tracked and the populace is better informed, then there would be less in the way of accidents or illegal activity.

My view on gun control has been changing for a while now.  I was very opposed to guns being legal at all for a long time, mostly due in part to never having used, held, or having much knowledge about them or the people who owned them.  In the past couple years, I've been able to fire them at ranges, learn about their function and proper safety, and have met with supporters of their ownership.  Having been exposed to this opposing perspective has informed me a great deal.  I agree with the Supreme Court that the right to bear arms is a historic right that should be upheld; people should have a means to defending themselves, and taking guns away isn't going to stop crime.  Correct and widespread education of gun safety and operation would go a long way to reducing the gap between the two sides of this argument.  It makes much more sense to tackle deviant behavior in rapists than to outlaw short skirts and provocative dancing at parties.  However, I think the most destructive of weapons such as fully automatic guns, explosive rounds, bazookas, and the like have no place on the street or in one's home.  Keeping them at the gun range under secure lock and law would be more appropriate, I think.  The demand for them is so low, I don't think they pose a great threat.

Seeing as America is increasingly becoming the minority in countries that allow gun ownership, are we backwards in our laws and thinking?

Thanks for reading.