Post by Jarod G.
Featured Image by Hepburn, Jeffrey
One of today’s very controversial topics, gun rights, has had many people question the meaning and intent of the Second Amendment to the Constitution. “The right to bear arms” was placed in the Bill of Rights in order to protect the people of the United States from government if it had gotten corrupt or did not serve the people.
The Amendment’s Purpose
“To write about all the tyrannical governments that have killed, raped, tortured, enslaved, imprisoned, exiled, and stolen from all the people they have disarmed would require a book. Gun control is in reality people control starting from some very racist roots. In Maryland the law read “That no Negro or other slave, within this Province, shall be permitted to carry any Gun or any other offensive Weapon….” In Nazi Germany the law read “Jews are prohibited from acquiring, possessing, and carrying firearms and ammunition, as well as truncheons or stabbing weapons”. Whether it was not allowing African-Americans to own guns in this country or not allowing Jews to own guns in Nazi Germany the intent was the same, to have disarmed victims incapable of resistance” –Progressivism’s Violent World
Originally, the amendment’s purpose was to secure the power of the people in the government that is for them. The way that would work is that if the people felt the government was incapable of it’s duties, then the people can and would overthrow that government, as well as institute a reformed one.
This idea is written; “Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government”- The Declaration of Independence
The idea then is put into law as the Second Amendment; “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 Bill of Rights
Gun Control Advocates’ Reasonings
Many people who believe that there should be restrictions on the ownership, selling, and use of firearms argue that a restrictive law would help protect society and the general public. They believe that guns are objects of destruction, engineered to kill, and should in no way be allowed to be owned by the mentally ill and disabled, as well as criminals. As this person says, “ things that are used to destroy for the sake of destroying should be kept out of reach of the blithering mob. Weapons for defense of country should be stored in a warehouse that is easily defended from a few criminals, but impossible to defend from an active and organized resistance. Hunting or ranging for fun are fine, in confined spaces and with licenses. Self-defense is much better practiced by using better debilitating weapons such as tasers and tranquilizers.”-Author: “Bullish” -Debate.org
Also, gun control laws would supposedly “reduce murder rates by [not] allowing anyone to own machines engineered to murder in the most efficient way possible”, and help prevent crime. – Author- “Philocat” -Debate.org
Why Gun Rights are Needed
The right to bear arms is not only a necessity of the American public but also a need for individuals in order to defend themselves. As Michael Z. Williamson describes how he thinks pro- control people think; “That an intruder will be incapacitated by tear gas or oven spray, but if shot with a .44 Magnum will get angry over your retaliation and kill you”-Reasons to be Pro- Gun Rights. I mean, it’s pretty simple: whether there will be gun bans or not, criminals will illegally get a gun and whether you have or don’t have a firearm to defend yourself with can decide life or death.
Although firearms can be lifesaving items, they can also fall into the wrong hands and that is why we need minimal restrictions for them. Simple ones, such as age requirements, firearms licenses, quick background checks, and preventing the mentally ill from buying something they shouldn’t.
In conclusion, the Second Amendment’s purpose and the right to defend one’s life should guarantee the right to the average American to own a firearm for defensive and recreational purposes. Although this issue seems to have a simple solution or resolution, currently no one has reached it, and maybe no one ever will, as the following quote concludes:
“The problem is complex and simplistic approaches like banning guns or putting police in the schools won’t work for a number of reasons [….] Therefore, as with any issue, we have to start with basic principles and moral implications. That means talking about the one moral imperative that guides us in all human relationships, the non-aggression principle […] It is immoral to initiate the use of force or the threat of force against peaceful people. In other words, a person has to be actually engaging in aggression or credibly threatening to do so before it is morally justifiable to use force in retaliation. What does that have to do with guns? The mere possession of an inanimate object such a gun aggresses against no one. There is no moral justification for taking guns away from people who adhere to the non-aggression principle since this involves initiating the use of force to separate them from their weapons.” –Progressivism’s Violent World