The preamble of the United States Constitution clearly states its objective:
to establish justice, insure domestic tranquillity, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity
The bill of rights is the set of amendments to the constitution intended to secure these objectives for the individual citizens of the United States. The second amendment 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.
This amendment was written
in the wake of the revolutionary war, when the ability to raise arms against
the imperial force made the new republic possible. Securing the ownership of
arms as a right was central to creating a government that would not infringe
on the liberty of its citizens. The use of arms however is the last option
reserved for when all other attempts at the preservation of liberty have
failed.
Today we live in a much different world than that of our founders. The rise of the United States into world dominance, the shift of population into the cities, and the increase of drug use and violence have produced great change in our society. Americans once feared the loss of the free state would come from foreign invasion or political corruption, but now the greatest threat is the violence we see on the evening news. The increase in violence and murder has sparked the greatest debate over gun ownership in our nation's history. The second amendment has been reinterpreted by those who feel the mere presents of guns have led to increased violence. I believe that the threat violence posses to personal liberty is the best reason to protect gun rights.
The first step in understanding the gun control debate is understanding the second amendment. The meaning of the second amendment depends on the definition of two words: Militia and Regulated.
Some feel that the national guard fulfills the constitutional requirement for a militia. The guard is a highly organized arm of the military that can be deployed to any part of the world and for any purpose the commanders of the armed forces see fit. A militia however is defined by the Webster dictionary as a group of citizens called out only in emergencies. The supreme court presented its definition of militia in US vs. Miller (1939):
The signification attributed to the term Militia appear from the debates in the convention, the history and legislation of colonies and states, and the writings of approved commentators. These show plainly enough that the Militia comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense...
This ruling upheld 10 USC Sec. 311. This law defined
all able bodied male citizens between the age of 17 and 45 as part of the
militia. The national guard is clearly part of the militia, but the militia is a
much greater force than the Guard alone. This view is the one supported by
theNRA .
Those who oppose this interpretation of militia, such as the ACLU , claim that if the second amendment allows the ownership to a gun it must also allow ownership of a tank or a nuclear bomb. This point was also addressed in the Miller case:
...and further, that ordinarily when called for service these men were expected to appear bearing arms supplied by themselves and of a kind in common use at the time.
The weapons in common use today are handguns, shotguns, riffles and some assault weapons. These are also the weapons at the center of the gun control debate.
The second definition that greatly impacts the meaning of the second amendment is the definition of the word regulated. The anti-control group feels that the meaning of regulated in the second amendment simply means that the militia should be ready to fight. This would include knowing how to use a gun, keeping it clean and having the sights set correctly. This definition is much to narrow for a fair discussion of gun control.
We must assume that the founders understood the responsibilities that are inherent with gun ownership. The exclusion of criminals and the insane had to be seen in the interest of the republic. These specific decisions are constitutionally the responsibility of individual states. The regulations placed on the ownership of guns fall into two categories. The first sets of regulations are penalties and deterrents for those who should not have guns. Second is the regulations that help to protect law abiding gun owners.
Guns must be regulated to prevent criminals and others who might use weapons against the good of the state from attaining weapons legally or illegally. President George Bush indicated the true problem in a 1992 speech. I am firmly committed to keeping guns out of criminals’ hands and keeping criminals off the street. Ultimately, the only “gun control” that will really work is crime control
In order to decrease the number of criminals in possession of guns, several reforms are needed.
The strictest of regulations can
not solve the problem of violence in America. The black market is strong and
will continue to serve the needs of the criminal. The United States has no
hope of truly improving its social dilemma without a return to values.
Until the situation improves, the lawful citizen must be allowed to protect him/herself in the spirit of the second amendment. Compliance with simple regulations that will help protect the owner and others demonstrates responsibility in gun ownership. I feel that gun ownership should be handled in the same fashion as car ownership. The first step should be thorough training. Mandatory safety classes will teach how and when the use a gun is appropriate. When the training is completed, a gun can be registered and a license for use issued. Despite all the training in the world, accidents still happen. A gun owner liability policy should be required of anyone who wishes to own or use a gun. This policy would probably become part of a homeowners policy, and could be used as a pre-check system for the purchase of handguns. This would place the responsibility of background checks on the insurance companies rather than the tax-payer. It would also allow those with a policy to pick out and take home a gun on the same day, eliminating the need for a waiting period. The insurance industry is the foremost expert in the prevention of accidents. The regulations they would place on gun owners would be more effective than any the government bureaucracy could develop for the prevention of accidents.
In any situation guns should be seen as the last option. In some cases however the use of deadly force is your only protection. In 1992 firearms were used for self defense over 82 thousand times. In 63% of these incidents the victim only had to show the gun to stop the attack. [U.S. Department of Justice April 1994 ] With proper training a gun is an effective deterrent and a lethal defense.
Perhaps the people who know the best about
gun control are police officers. In a 1978 survey of police officers all most
unanimously agreed on mandatory prison sentences, stricter laws on handgun
sales and increased requirements for handgun dealers. In this same survey
they also agreed that citizens should be allowed guns in there homes for self
protection. This shows that police officers know they can not protect
everyone at once, at times it falls on the individual to make up there own
mind on self defense.
These books were used in the writing of this paper. All other sources may be accessed through links in the document.
Schwartz, Ted. Protect Your Home and Family. Arco Publishing:New York, New York 1984
Surgarman, Josh. NRA: Money, Firepower and Fear. National Press Books:Washington D.C. 1992
