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.
by David T. Bruce
The Second Amendment to the United States Constitution supports the necessity of a disciplined and prepared military force as a means to protect and defend each state. To that end, the Constitution provides that people will have the right to keep and bear arms.
This right has become a mantra for firearm enthusiasts; this right has become a refrain is boisterously sounded as a defense for owning assault weapons. Our federal government has been largely elusive in terms of how our society should manage the sale of guns and the expectations of gun owners. As of the end of 2012, there are “no federal laws banning semi-automatic assault weapons, military-style .50 caliber rifles, handguns, or large capacity ammunition magazines, which can increase the potential lethality of a given firearm.” As well, Congress has allowed assault weapon prohibitions to expire.
Our representatives continue to dodge the issue while American citizens continue to dodge bullets.
The issue of gun control cannot hinge on the Second Amendment. Each year, our love affair with guns earns firearm manufacturers over $1 billion and costs our society over 30,000 lives. In 2010 the CDC estimated that 30 homicides were committed per day with guns, and while this number is on the decline and varies based on the statistics used, this cannot be considered tolerable.
The word “change” is thrown about on both sides of the political aisle, and we are told that change is inevitable at home and in the workplace.
Rules change as we grow up. We cannot effectively throw a temper tantrum to get our way. Rules that once applied when we were two years old do not hold true when we are twenty years old; the same can be said for our nation as it grows up. The rules set down by the authors of the Constitution reflected the world in which they lived. They did not – nor could they – conceive of the world in which we live today.
Is it not possible that “arms” may refer to bows and arrows, knives and spears, as well as muskets?
Is it reasonable to expect that each of us has the right to own a semi-automatic or automatic weapon?
Do we put our own lives and the lives of our families and neighbors at risk by clinging to this expectation?
Many people argue as to why the Second Amendment was drafted and worded the way it was. Unfortunately, none of us were there, and it seems that the best way to interpret the intent of this particular right is to apply it to modern times.
Can we, in good conscience, argue that the founding fathers of our nation could foresee the availability and proliferation of modern weaponry?
Do we need arms for reasons other than providing food for our families and protecting our homes?
I am not suggesting that our rights should be taken away; I am suggesting that there are some rights that we do not have to begin with.
Preserving our rights is paramount, and any discussion related to reinterpreting, modifying or amending our amendments guarantees to raise eyebrows and cause frustrations on all sides of the issue. By lumping all guns together under one amendment, however, we invite disaster.
Forget statistics; look at the facts.
We do not need semi-automatic and automatic weapons in our homes and in our neighborhoods.
We need a well regulated militia; we do not need mercenaries.
We have the right to keep and bear arms; we do not have the right to define “arms” as we see fit.
The Second Amendment is not at risk; human lives are.
For a variety of interpretations and a broader perspective about the Second Amendment debate, take time to read this interesting examination and analysis of the Second Amendment, authored by Professor Eugene Volokh.
Image source: WorldMeets.Us