I promised controversy and I thought why not start with gun rights. Today, we will explore the original intent of the Second Amendment. In addition to the original intent, I want to suggest a solution to the issue. I am going to make this as simple as possible.
The right to own a gun versus controlling gun ownership has been an on-going debate, which seems to be at a stand still. Neither side wants to concede. The problem is that no one is willing to compromise on the issue; each side takes an extreme stance. One side is saying they want to carry whatever type of gun they please, and the other side is saying guns are bad, we are all going to die. Okay, maybe I embellished the latter statement a little, but I am not too far from the reality of the situation.
Both sides are using the Second Amendment in an attempt to validate their beliefs. While I cannot say one stance is right and the other blatantly wrong, I can show the intention of the Second Amendment. The Second Amendment, as per the Bill of Rights, states “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.”
Take notice of how the amendment states that a militia is needed to keep states safe, not individuals. Following the (not so) Revolutionary War, the British and Indians were a major threat to the security of the United States, thus a need for guns. During that time a standing army did not exist, there were militias. However, when a standing army was created, for the sake of argument, in 1792, a need for militias was nullified. Please note that the Legion of the United States was formed in 1792, but later disbanded. Read Article I,Ssection 8 of the Constitution for more information regarding Congress’ restrictions on raising armies.
Unfortunately, the debate did not expire with the militias because America’s Constitution is viewed as a living document, ripe for interpretation. As such, two theories (among others) arose from the Second Amendment. One theory, the collective rights theory, argues that there is no longer a militia, ergo the Second Amendment should no longer be relevant. The individual rights theory says the interpretation of the amendment gives the individual a right to own a gun. In terms of the founding father’s intent upon writing the Second Amendment, I would almost agree with the collective rights theory.
From a historical standpoint, the collective rights theory is accurate. Enter my controversial opinion. I want to make it quite clear that I value the historical importance of the Constitution. Nevertheless, I do not see why Americans insist on arguing over a document that is over a couple of decades old, a document that originally mentions slavery in a favorable manner. People should consider that entities exist now that the founding fathers could not even fathom, entities that the Constitution is not prepared to deal with.
Food for thought, take a stance but do not just look at the past, consider the present and future when arguing about guns. According to the American Bar Association, “The rate of death from firearms in the United States is eight times higher than that in its economic counterparts in other parts of the World.” Honestly, I do not mind someone that wants to own a gun for self-defense or hunting. I am perturbed by somebody that believes they have a right to own a machine gun or other assault weapons, or someone that wants to buy a gun and take it home the same day. A compromise could be reached between both sides that allows guns but with limitations. An extensive background check and at least a two week waiting period should be required before a gun is purchased. If you think that violates your rights, think again. Your right to own a gun shall not infringe upon my right to live.
Anyone that is interested in the great gun debate should read Saul Cornell’s A Well Regulated Militia: The Founding Fathers and the Origins of Gun Control in America. Also, there are copious court cases that are relevant, such as: The Buzzard Case, the Miller Case, and District of Columbia vs. Heller.
