The Second Amendment states, "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 controversy surrounding this
amendment has only been a recent development. After several mass shootings occurred the last few years, gun
rights activists have tried to limit or regulate the sale of guns and
ammunition. This has scared many
gun owners, and has created the illusion that the government is trying to take
guns away from the American people.
However, the ambiguousness of the Second Amendment provides very little
guidance on this issue. The
Huffington Post on January 16, 2013 states that the last part of the amendment
is often read without taking the first part into consideration. Paying attention to only the last part
of the amendment implies that no matter what, the American people have a right
to own guns. Adding in the first
half of the amendment, it would appear that the only reason to bear arms would
be to keep a militia – a point which is now mute since the federal government
has its own military and doesn’t need a people’s militia.
From
a gun-rights standpoint, The New Yorker published an article on April 19, 2012
citing the Supreme Court case District of
Columbia v. Heller. Justice Scalia wrote for the majority ““The
Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected
with service in a militia.” In
this interpretation, Scalia disconnects the two halves of the Second Amendment,
and advances the idea that all Americans possess an inherit right to own guns. And
this feeling is echoed within the majority of the American public. The articles states that in 2008, a
poll reported that almost two-thirds of Americans believe the Second Amendment
defends their right to own a gun.
From
a regulation activist standpoint the previously cited Huffington Post states
that based only on the text of the Second Amendment, it does not guarantee
unlimited individual rights to gun ownership. The text could mean just a certain gun, and not all arms,
thus regulation would be justified.
The previously cited New Yorker article states that the United
States by far has the highest rate of civilian gun ownership – even double the
rates of the second country. But
the U.S. also boasts the highest worldwide homicide rate of any developed
country. From this viewpoint, it would appear that some sort of regulation
and/or more extensive background checks are needed to avoid future tragedies
comparable to Sandy Hook, Aurora and Virginia Tech.
On
a personal level, I believe there is no way the government will ever be able to
completely take away the guns of each American. There would be a revolution before that happened. So discussing
the banning of firearms is a mute point.
However, with the tragedies surrounding gun violence, I am in full
support of further regulation and more extensive background checks. While there will never be a solution to
this issue that will please everyone, it is important to consider the greatest
good for the greatest number of people.
If regulating guns would keep a firearm out of a dangerous individual’s
hands’ longer, and even red flag police forces if they tried to buy a gun, then
regulation of guns has served its purpose.
No comments:
Post a Comment