Our ancestors migrated to the United States
to escape oppressive totalitarian government [1]. The
concept behind the United States is one of a government with little control
over the people. The words in the constitution are not what give us our rights;
they simply prevent the government from infringing on our rights.
“Should
automatic assault weapons be banned?”
The second
amendment states that in order to maintain a free state, the people must retain
the right to keep and bear arms. The second
amendment was written – not as a way to protect ourselves from one another or a
way for the government to protect the American people – but as a way to protect
text of the second amendment:
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 thought being that
no government would be foolish enough to infringe on the rights of a people
that could fight back.
But
the second amendment was written in 1791 before the National Guard, the Air
Force and the F.B.I. In 1791, the most common gun in the United States was the
musket. A trained solider was capable of 4 rounds per minute, re-loading after
each shot [3]. Today, if the government wanted to take control of the American
people, I have no doubt that armed citizens would not be able to stop that from
happening.
In 2012 the
most common gun is the semi-automatic, a semi-automatic is capable of firing 45
rounds per minute; and though such weapons would still do little to protect us
from our own government – if ever were to need that protection – to shoot the
equivalent amount of bullets in one minute: it would take more than ten
musketeers to match the fire rate of one semi-automatic assault rifle with [3].
So, the
original purpose of the second amendment is now a mute point. Legitimate gun
use in the present consists only of hunting, recreation and self protection. In
the context of today, benefits of citizens keeping weapons is small: recreation
and hunting, relative to the cost to society of so many guns, in so many
places, used for ill purpose.
A simple solution
would be to take arms away from everyone, but this is an impossible dream. There
are an estimated 200 million guns extant in the United States today [2]. Locating
and confiscating all of those guns, especially from those who intend to use
them for malicious use would be impossible.
More realistically, assault weapons could be made
illegal. This is a class of weapon with little to no recreational use and a
detrimental cost. Such weapons have been the primary tools by the shooters at
Columbine [4], Virginia Tech [5], and the theatre in Aurura [6], Colorado and
so many others [7].
In today’s environment
the second amendment could not have been meant military rifles, large magazines
and gun slinging criminal.
Now, I don’t know about you but I would rather
go up against an 18th century musketeer then a modern-day gunman. I
would have a much better chance of survival and it would make for a much cooler
story.
Sources:
[2] http://wiki.answers.com/Q/How_many_guns_are_in_the_United_States_of_America,
published on November 9, 2012
[6] http://articles.latimes.com/2012/jul/20/nation/la-na-nn-dark-knight-shooting-20120720,
published on November 9, 2012
[7] http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/9414540/A-history-of-mass-shootings-in-the-US-since-Columbine.html,
published on November 9, 2012
http://oag.ca.gov/firearms/pubfaqs#26,
published on November 9, 2012
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution,
published on November 9, 2012
Some interesting thoughts to consider. I believe as Mary pointed out, it is preciously the nature of the constitution and the reason for the founding of this nation (that of a government with little control over the people) that will limit (unless we decide to deviate as a nation) the enforcement of gun control laws, be the guns automatic or muskets. It is alarming the amount of shootings these days, and very sad. However it is hopeful that many of the shootings are cut at least short by concealed weapons holders. As Mary also said, I agree that restricting weapons from devious minds and those intending harm would be nearly impossible (my multiple experiences in rough areas would also corroborate the difficulty entailed with restricting weapons). Being that legally and culturally restricting most types of guns is challenging, I am primarily interested in how to educate those who have guns. At least those not intending harm would avoid lethal mistakes. I think a much larger push could occur in targeted communities that urge gun education, free of charge and paid for by both the government and private groups like the NRA. If the targeted communities showed improvement then they could consider rolling it out on a much larger scale. It is possible these types of programs already exist, but I believe I paid a fee to take a gun safety class - something that might deter others. Since it is a right to bear arms, one could probably not mandate education before the purchasing of arms - but maybe all those selling guns from behind the counter could be enticed to strongly urge education for every person purchasing a gun for the first time? Some thoughts.
ReplyDeleteJake, this is a very thoughtful comment and I appreciate your input. But I fail to see how these gun education classes in your solution could not be made mandatory, I (like everyone else) had to take classes before getting my drivers licence, how is this different?
Deletep.s. who is Mary?
I find it interesting that we take into consideration how times have changed when looking at other constitutional amendments, but I have not heard about it being applied to gun regulation. I agree that it probably should be taken into consideration how guns have changed when deciding how to regulate them. I feel like there are a lot of people with very strong opinions about their right to bear arms and would oppose any further regulations. If weapons were to be more restricted, it would probably take a long time for changes to be fully implemented because of how many guns there are in America. I like the idea of having to take a class to get a weapons permit or something similar. However, since I have not really had any experience with guns, I do not feel like I can make an educated decision about how they should be regulated. Overall the problem is with how the guns are used, and trying to change that by changing gun regulations is a very difficult connection to make.
ReplyDeleteWith Jake's comment about how, "shootings are cut at least short by concealed weapons holders," I was wondering how often there would be someone with a weapon around to stop the shooting in time. I feel like that would be very rare.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThe whole issue of gun control is more of a "what if" issue. What if we "take away" guns and something happens and everyone is left seemingly defenseless? What if guns aren't regulated and people go crazy and violent crime rates go up even more? There isn't a perfect solution, but if someone intends to go out and harm people, not having a gun probably won't stop them. I can't really imagine that someone having a gun during a shooting is going to make a significant difference, and could just add to the chaos of the situation. As far as Constitutionality goes, who really knows. Everyone seems to be interpreting the 2nd Amendment differently, trying to figure out if gun ownership is directly related to service in a militia or not.
ReplyDeleteWith all of the shootings that have been happening lately gun control has become a much bigger issue. It always seems that the discussion is about gun regulation and not about taking away our right to bear arms. Gun regulation is a very tricky thing because many people have guns that they plan to use illegally so they won't pay attention to any regulation that is put in place. It is a difficult subject to address as well because from what I know gun regulation is done on a state by state basis. State's with more wilderness and hunting have less regulation but more more densely populated states have stricter regulations. If feel that if we too heavily regulate guns the average law abiding citizen will be more prone to attack because most often criminals will cary a gun no matter the regulations put in place.
ReplyDeleteI think that this post is correct in noting that the original intent of the second amendment is no longer relevant today given the extraordinary military power and weapons of the United States. I don't think that an all out ban on guns would be reasonable given law abiding citizens would be left without protection, and many criminals would still likely obtain guns through the black market. While just banning assualt weapons may make it more difficult to obtain weapons for mass attack, it would also allow citizens to possess weapons for protection. I am not aware of any reason why an ordinary citizen would have great need to possess these kind of weapons for any reason other than harming large groups of people.
ReplyDeleteThe concept of the Constitution as a "living, breathing" document takes on new relevance in this scenario. Realistically, the abolishment of the right to bear arms is highly unlikely, as such a right has become deeply engrained within the foundations of our society. Ideally, abolishing gun rights represents the best solution to our current problems with gun violence, and we must not rule out such possibilities, as we have seen the Constitution undergo many changes throughout its short history. An additional matter of relevance, although seemingly unrelated, regards the role played by the 2nd Amendment in prolonging the drug-related violence and trafficking in both the United States and Mexico. Many of the guns used in violent cartel wars along our southern border are provided by the United States. Considering the immense casualties resulting from such violence in addition to those occurring domestically, further consideration of the 2nd Amendment becomes increasingly important, both morally and culturally.
ReplyDeleteI don't accept that the right to bear arms is an outdated need. The reasoning behind the right to bear arms still applies today. The fact that the right to bear arms is necessary for citizens to defend themselves seems to argue in favor of allowing automatic weapons. I concede that a certain amount of regulation is good and necessary to protect society against the "crazies;" however, I do not think that this right should be suspended because it is misused by the minority. Citizens shouldn't be deprived this right because a few crazy people can't handle it. As we know, guns aren't the only way to kill people. Abolishing gun rights may inconvenience criminals, but it would definitely leave law abiding citizens defenseless. Those who think we need to get rid of this right must by the same reasoning think that we shouldn't be able to possess anything remotely dangerous (knife, bow, ect.). Government should focus on promoting gun safety, not regulating them to the point that the "right to bear arms" no longer bears any significance.
ReplyDeleteI think our current gun laws should be enforced before we put new ones on the table. I agree with Mary on how the Constitution was written in a very different time, and ought not be taken the same way as in the past. The guns that are best for self defense and hunting are not automatic assault weapons, and there really is no need for them as a civilian. If gun supporters are able to have these dangerous weapons available to the everyday citizen, then what is the next step? RPG's? We have to interpret our constitution to a reasonable degree, rather than take an extreme stance. In my opinion, limit how dangerous of a gun someone can buy without special permits, and then track the guns efficiently so that wrongdoers using those guns can be found.
ReplyDeleteJust because technology has improved and our population has increased doesn't mean we should be forced to give up our second ammendment rights. I believe everyone should have the right and ability to defend themselves. By instituting gun control, we would be taking that right away. Responsible citizens would be left defenseless against those who acquired their guns illegally through black markets. Crime would increase as criminals would realize and take advantage of the defenseless public. It is true that gun control would succeed in reducing the number of gun related accidents. However, these fatalities would only be replaced by assault and criminal homicide.
ReplyDeleteI completely agree. I feel like the writers of the second amendment knew that eventually technology would evolve. There was a time before guns, at the time it was written guns were working but inefficient, now guns are extremely common and efficient. That does not change the law. I also agree that when something is outlawed it just increases crime rates. If people cannot walk into a shop and buy a gun they will find other alternatives and those may very well be the source of more gun related crimes.
DeleteI definitely have mixed feelings about the second amendment. Coming from a family and environments where guns were accessible for hunting and recreational purposes, i have a personal connection to the implementation of the 2nd amendment. I do however, understand that the second amendment was created during a time of domestic turmoil, "being necessary to the security of a free State" dictating the reason for freedom of arms as a response to British occupation and conflict. As much as I understand the modern desires for firearms, I do believe that new measures need to be put into effect in order to regulate the weapons available to the general public. As mentioned above, weapons technology has vastly changed, and new advances in assault weapons/automatic weapons need to be taken into consideration. I personally support banning the public sale and use of assault weapons. Additionally, although I understand that it is the rights of citizens to bear arms, stricter regulations need to be in place in order to ensure that said weapons will not be utilized for inherently malicious purposes. The desire for a firearm for personal safety or recreation should be upheld, but I feel that even though it is a right, there should still be regulation. The public should be informed in order to make intelligent decisions involving firearms, which would hopefully lessen the damage caused by them.
ReplyDeleteThere is a right and a wrong that goes beyond safety. Many make the argument that if everyone had guns there would be less crime because criminals wouldn't want to attack armed citizens. However logical that point is, I don't care for it. What matters is that we should live in a free society. The people should be able to own guns for purely moral reasons, not necessarily pragmatic ones. If one were to own a dangerous "assault weapon", and he never harmed anyone with it, then what is the problem? I don't see one. We have laws against murder. We have laws against having a gun near a school. We even have laws that prohibit the sale of firearms to mentally unstable people and people who have been convicted of felony crimes.
ReplyDeleteMany should not be punished for the actions of a few. I don't feel that my right to own deadly weapons should be infringed because some nut job shot up a movie theatre.
Think of the amount of lives that would be saved if we outlawed motor vehicles, alcohol, tobacco and most simple carbohydrates, such as processed sugar. If our society was free of these "deadly" agents, then less people would die. But I want the right to enjoy my tobacco, alcohol, cars, unhealthy food, and even my guns. Just because some irresponsible people hurt themselves and others doesn't mean I shouldn't be allowed to live as I please.
I agree that assault weapons serve no useful purpose for a civilian in our society today. If you want a gun to protect your family, you don't need an assault weapon to do that. Rifles or pistols are just fine for that cause. Assault weapons have a history of being used in massacres, and it is apparent that that won't change. Assault weapons should be outlawed for civilian use, plain and simple. It is not an infringement on the 2nd Amendment, it is simply a limitation of the types of guns you can purchase for the safety of the public at large.
ReplyDelete