by Seth Stuck

Created on: July 21, 2008

I feel as though the debate on Gun legislation, like every other hot topic debate, gets very diluted. The public seems to have boiled down the argument into two very simplistic viewpoints. 1) Ban guns so people can't shoot other people or 2) People have a right to bear arms and need guns to protect themselves and/ or hunt. Like most other common opinion, this is too narrow-minded.

I'm not really a constructionalist. I don't think that we ought to look to how the constitution and bill of rights were originally constructed and intended to operate in order to find our future path. Our laws ought to grow and evolve with our culture. That said, I do think that the original intent of the second amendment has relevant reasoning even today.

From wiki:

Quote:
The Second Amendment (Amendment II) to the United States Constitution is a part of the United States Bill of Rights that protects the pre-existing individual right to possess and carry weapons (i.e. "keep and bear arms") in case of confrontation. Codification of the right to keep and bear arms into the Bill of Rights was influenced by a fear that the federal government would disarm the people in order to impose rule through a standing army or select militia, since history had shown the way tyrants eliminated resistance to suppression of political opponents was to simply take away the people's arms and make it an offense to keep them. In District of Columbia v. Heller, the Supreme Court ruled that self-defense is a central component of the right.

Second Amendment:

Quote:
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.

With all this in mind, I'd say that it's not very likely that the common man will find himself sitting in the suburbs, wishing he had a gun because the US Military is running through the United States to inflict martial rule. It's just not something this country would do. At least we don't think so. But I'd say that the law was written at a time where the federal government was even LESS likely to inflict martial law than it is now. So why would they add this amendment?

I think it's simple, and wiki hit the nail on the head. The quickest way to rob a population of their voice is to rob them of the ability to first protect themselves. If someone cannot protect themselves and their family, oppression is a very real possibility. The second amendment is necessary, I think, so that each American can defend themselves

• 1
• 2
• 3
• Next Page >>