It is time to talk about a very controversial
topic, the dreaded topic of gun control. This is very much a hot button topic right
now. Gun control is being shouted about,
both for and against, by everyone in the media and politics. So what is my stance are you wondering? I propose that any form of gun control is not
only illegal, but unconstitutional. How
did I come to this decision? Let’s
examine each aspect of it.
First
thing that we need to examine is the basis of gun ownership, The Second
Amendment. The Second Amendment of the
constitution reads, “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.” So let’s break this down and
examine the parts. A militia is defined
by the dictionary as “1. A body of citizens enrolled for military service, and
called out periodically for drill but serving full time only in emergencies.” At first glance, lots of you are saying, that
is our National Guard. And you would be
right, if you ignore the other definitions of militia. The second definition states that citizen
soldiers are distinguished from professional soldiers. That’s fancy speak for they are not paid for
what they do. Examining things from that
light moves the National Guard to a different variation of a standing army, not
a militia.
Even
now, there are numerous people saying, but that doesn’t mean that assault rifle
bans are unconstitutional. The
primary argument I hear for this point is that the founding fathers did not
account for the assault weapons that we have now. I have a different perspective. The founding fathers intended for the Second Amendment to protect the types of weapons that the standing army would use. I think that they understood that weapons
would evolve, as they were aware of the evolution of the bow and arrow to the
muzzle loader that was the primary weapon during the revolution. Keeping that in mind, then any rifles currently
fielded by any army in existence (mainly referencing AR-15, M-4, AK-47, etc.) are
what the framers of the constitution envisioned being protected by the Second Amendment.
Now it should be noted that this is
not referring to heavier weaponry such as cannons, rockets, or missiles. The founding fathers did not equate heavy
weaponry with everyday weaponry. Again
we have to reference the dictionary. Arms in the dictionary, in relation to the
definition having to do with weapons, defines arm as usually firearms, which is
defined as small arms weapons, life rifles and pistols, from which a projectile
is fired using gunpowder. So when we look at this logically, we see that any
regulation on the ownership of any rifle or handgun that is in use by the
military is by definition unconstitutional. 
3 comments:
In my fellow classmates blog Politically inept? Not For Long, He talks about how all forms of Gun Control are not only illegal but Unconstitutional. He had a very strong argument, saying the founding fathers envisioned the evolution of weaponry and therefore most weaponry is our given right thanks to the Second Amendment. Honestly it took me a while to think of a rebuttal for his argument as my main argument for gun control is the founding fathers, as brilliant and far thinking as they were, didn't foresee the amount of death that the Second Amendment is causing. However, there are already gun regulations currently in the United states and the branch of government that is in charge of deciding whether or not a law is unconstitutional or not, the Judicial branch, has supported several laws that limit Americans ability to "bear arms". The second amendment was implemented to protect American citizens and I would argue it does more harm than good at this point in time. I cannot see our founding fathers being okay with there being more mass shootings in a year then there are days. I do believe his argument that they knew weaponry would advance but it is impossible to know how much or to what extent they would evolve to.
Will, I appreciate the research you implemented into your blog post, but all you write/focus about is the Second Amendment/constitution/law. Those amendments were set forth in a different time zone (1791), that has been about 226 years in the past. The world is consistently developing and we as the people should allow change and growth to blossom in the environment, population growth, and even specific laws such as gun control. Many things have CHANGED since 1791, most importantly slavery abolishment since December 18th, 1865. We have changed laws on slavery such as The First Fugitive Slave Law from 1793, because the people realized this was wrong and CHANGED regulations and codes to free slaves lives. Laws can and should be changed to accommodate to the times we live in NOW. A law that was provided almost 300 years ago had a different consciousness, habitual circumstance, and so forth. Shootings in elementary schools, movie theaters, country fest, and churches is the CURRENT state of consciousness we are in now. Keeping and believing in laws that are not improving or protecting the lives of others CURRENTLY should be changed, with the goal in mind of protecting the innocent bystanders that will immediately face a death penalty by a mentally unstable gun owner or terrorist. I am not a believer in completely abolishing of guns, as I do not believe it will be productive in our society, but I do believe if one wants to have the privilege to own one, we need to know their intent. Being a military member or rancher should not make you eligible to have one, as this has been clearly stated with the most recent shooting in a small community church in San Antonio, Texas. I respect those who want to own guns for reasonable circumstances, but this is what we have to think about when we give someone the permission to own guns. We may think if they pass a background check, then they should be eligible for a 2 for 1 deal at Academy simply because they had no criminal history. We need to mentally inspect these persons and make them 100% responsible and aware of the liability they will carry on when owning one. I believe their are responsible gun owners who have and can save the lives of those in a mass/minor shooting situation, but we MUST change the way we allow people to have access to them so we don't have anymore parents visiting their children's graves every Christmas. Even the stories we don't hear about on the news such as innocent children living in rough neighborhoods being killed by gang members because they wanted to take revenge on a fellow person.These are significant topics I wish you had mentioned. Until we have lost someone or have been effected by an irresponsible gun owner, we won't understand, but we can try and prevent these unfortunate situations from reoccurring in the many different circumstances we have seen. I respect you and the beliefs you stand by, I do, but instead of focusing on how we feel, we should listen to those who have lost a mother or child from a gun related incident.
Post a Comment