by Robert Briggs

Created on: February 05, 2010   Last Updated: February 06, 2010

Shall Not be Infringed: A Persuasive Discourse on the U.S. Second Amendment

It started out as any other day, and yet April 16, 2007 is destined to live on in the annals of American history as one of the all-time tragic events ever faced by this country.  This is because on this particular Monday morning, at the early hour of 7:15 a.m., a lone gunman, by the name of

Seung-Hui Cho began a shooting rampage which, when the smoke settled, claimed 32 lives and an undisclosed number of wounded on the campus of Virginia Tech University in the city of Blacksburg, Virginia. 

Within hours of the initial report, news outlets and political pundits were beginning the age old discussion regarding the need for gun control legislation and its inevitable outcome: the overturning of the Constitution’s Second Amendment. 

The second Amendment was considered by the Founding Fathers to be the main check on government and their standing armies. Additionally gun violence is not the result of lawful access to legal arms and munitions but rather the choice of an ever violent minority of people bent on inflicting pain, terror, and chaos.

Finally limiting the rights of law abiding citizens to arm and defend themselves will inevitably result in an increase of crime and violence and open the door to the potential abuse of a dictatorial regime.

For the Founding Fathers, English history made two things clear: an armed citizenry was the only effective check on the federal government, and standing armies threatened liberty.  Recognition of these two ideals meant that the force of arms necessary to check the government had to be placed in the hands of citizens.

Because this was the intended purpose of this right it is necessary that it belong to the individual.  Further it was to be absolute, meaning that it could not be done away with by the prevailing rulers.  These ideals were embraced by the framers of the Constitution, both Federalists and Antifederalists because neither group trusted government.

Both believed the greatest danger to the new republic was an oppressive government and that the ultimate check on tyranny was an armed population. They (the citizens) were the balance placed on government at all levels, not simply the federal government and to keep this check in place guns were an absolute necessity.

It has also been argued by some that the Second Amendment’s emphasis places the right to “keep and bear arms” within the scope

• 1
• 2
• 3
• ...
• 7
• Next Page >>