Get a Widget for this title
RSS FeedDo you believe that people have a fundamental right to bear arms?
Results so far:
| Yes | 70% | 92 votes | Total: 132 votes | |
| No | 30% | 40 votes |
Yes
Write now
Print
Invite a writer™
Add to FavoritesWhile many people argue that the right to bear arms is a "constitutional right," this is not accurate. There really is no such thing as a "constitutional right," only unalienable rights that are further protected by the constitution.
When the founding fathers wrote the constitution they specifically granted rights to the Federal government. These rights are spelled out quite plainly, including the ability to collect taxes, establish Post Offices, maintain a military, to coin money, etc. Any rights not explicitly given to the Federal government are reserved to the states and to the people.
The Bill of Rights was a hotly debated addition to the Constitution. One group thought that the addition of the Bill of Rights would later be interpreted to mean that those rights were somehow granted by the government. They felt that if they added any rights to the Constitution the government would assume that those were the only rights granted to the citizens. The other group felt that if no rights were listed that the government would not recognize any rights. The ninth and tenth amendments (ninth: "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people" and tenth: "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people") were put into the Bill of Rights as a sort of compromise.
These two amendments are, to some extent, more important to the people's right to bear arms than the second amendment. No where in the Constitution does it give the Federal government the right to control or restrict arms. Because the Constitution does not grant this power to the government, it is automatically granted to the states and the people. The second amendment restricts the states from passing laws that infringe upon the rights of the people, so the right is retained by the people.
A person has an inherent, unalienable, and natural right to life. This right includes the right to defend themselves from unprovoked aggression. Since an aggressor is likely to have a firearm (or other weapon), it is reasonable to grant a regular citizen to have similar weaponry in order to defend themselves (after all, if a person is being shot at, there isn't much use in trying to fight back with a butter knife). The founding fathers of this country understood that people need to be equipped to defend themselves from aggressors, whether it is another citizen, a foreign army, or their own government. This is the reason that the right was explicitly spelled out in the Bill of Rights. But, the right would exist whether it was included in the Bill of Rights or not, specifically because no where in the Constitution is the government granted the right to restrict the people from bearing arms.
Learn more about this author, Cameron Chapman.
Click here to send this author comments or questions.
No
Not Of The People
We live in a country where almost 10% of our elected leaders (4/44) have been assassinated while in office at the hands of fanatically deranged men. If we decided as a people to limit the possession of weapons in the general vicinity of current and future leaders (with the exception of their personal bodyguards) few rational citizens could claim such measures would be unjust.
Limiting the possession of guns and bombs and bows and arrows in the proximity of the most important individual we have is a sensible precaution. The chosen leader of the people, after all, reflects our combined intent. It isn't defensible for one person or fringe group to supplant our votes and voices to unilaterally change our history.
Let those Founding Father fans who daydream in twisted logic combat each other in simulated reenactments, working out their anger about the way things stand in constructively violent but safe mock environments, using blanks in place of ball and gunpowder. In my admittedly modest opinion, those guys in 1776 were as flawed as we seem to be today, owning slaves (or making money off some other aspect of the slave trade like shipping), mistreating women and immigrants and Jews and my people, the Irish.
Let's stop idolizing the likes of Jefferson and Washington and start facing the world as it exists today. We can start by supporting the duly-elected President of the United States, Barak Obama and seeing to his safety. There must be new law - amendment to the Constitution, if necessary - that limits gun rights within safety zones to be determined for the survival of the leader and other people in their immediate vicinity.
Should a consensus be reached, larger areas ought to be considered for weapon-free zones: New York City, LA, Chicago and Dallas to name a few. I'd imagine many people are tired of living in cities in fear of being shot during their average day. Do they care if firearms aren't allowed within city limits of their crime-ridden capital? They don't complain much getting on airplanes in any airport on the planet. They go through security checks, have their bags opened and give up their pistols. Why can't the proximity of our President warrant such caution?
If we can ensure the safety by security protocols at our airports for every Tom, Dick and Harry and Debra who traipses through LaGuardia, we could put a stop to violent expressions around Mr. Obama and all the presidents after him. It's the least we can do. And sadly, we are guilty of doing the least we can do too often.
Learn more about this author, Michael T. Heath.
Click here to send this author comments or questions.
Difference of opinion? Debate now.
- Constitutional & Contract Law
- Is the US Constitution a "living" document, which should change over time?
- Can the government use tax issues to force churches to accept gays?
- Should the government have the right to require a background check before you can purchase a firearm?
- Is the Adam Walsh Act about sex-offender notification unconstitutional?
- Should a woman have the right to choose abortion?
- Should the Internet be monitored and taxed by the government?
