Liberty Matters

Since its ratification in 1791, the meaning of the United State’s Constitution’s Second Amendment has been argued by gun proponents, and opponents, alike. The Supreme Court has yet to pass a decisive decision either way. But, that could all change, as early as this summer.The Supreme Court is currently hearing arguments to the legitimacy, or lack thereof, in regards to Washington D.C.’s ban on handguns. The question boils down to, is this law constitutional or not? As it is one of the strictest gun control laws in the nation, deciding the constitutionality of this 32-year-old handgun ban will likely have far-reaching effects on the rest of the nation.

The basic issue for the justices is whether the amendment protects an individual’s right to own guns or whether that right is somehow tied to service in a state militia.

The 27 words and three enigmatic commas of the Second Amendment have been analyzed again and again by legal scholars, but hardly at all by the Supreme Court.

The amendment 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, what does the Second Amendment refer to? Were the Founding Fathers referring to state’s rights or to individual rights? Let’s look at what is actually being said here. The amendment clearly sates “the right of the people to keep and bear arms.” In the amendment before, and the amendments after, the word “people” refers to an individual. What would make the Second Amendment any different? Why would “people” all of the sudden refer to the state? Also, a person can “bear arms” but is it possible for a state to do so? How would a state be able to “bear arms?” A 1997 Supreme Court ruling stated that only an individual can bear arms.

Unfortunately, this is just the first step. Gun ban proponents tend to cling to the morality aspect of guns. They feel that guns are immoral because of the chance of accidental death and the severity of injuries related to guns. What these misguided extremists are doing, however, is blaming the “tool.” They argue that not having access to these “tools” would decrease the severity of injuries and the accidental deaths. I have to argue otherwise.

How can ANYONE, who claims to have ANY KIND of morality support gun bans? Take a minute to think about it. Let what I am about to say really sink in before lashing out. Be sure to leave emotion and false attempts at morality at the door. The truth is, by banning guns these “moral” people are telling innocent individuals that their life is not worth the potential cost of a bullet. They are taking away the ability of the innocent to protect themselves against the criminals. What is an individual to do when approached by a criminal that is either taller, stronger, faster, smarter, has them outnumbered, or is more adept at fighting than themselves? The gun is a great equalizer. It is a fantastic deterrent and much more effective than any other form of personal protection. If anything, it allows those less-able to protect themselves, because of the above-mentioned deficiencies, the opportunity to walk away from a potential altercation alive, and, quite possibly, unhurt.

The person that claims the individual has no right to protect themselves, with a gun, against one which would do them harm is morally defunct in every way. They are so intent on looking at the immediate, easy outcome (i.e. no guns means that there will possibly be less severe outcomes to crimes) that they fail to realize the more serious implications of what they are suggesting (those they are claiming they are trying to protect will become even easier to target and hurt). What they are failing to comprehend is that making guns illegal will NOT get them out of the hands of criminals. It will only, somewhat effectively, remove guns from law-abiding citizens. What good does that do anyone?

The bulk of our problem with our own government, here in the United States, is that it spends too much time putting band-aids on problems and trying to outlaw the tools used. Instead, the time and effort should be spent on attacking the root of the problem…the people who are committing the crimes. Education and deterrence work a lot better than making crime easier to commit by unarming innocent, law-abiding people. Get to the root of the problem and you have a chance at solving it.

Unfortunately, those who are all for gun bans cannot seem to get past the correlation concerning guns and crime, and that’s what they base their “logic” on. What ever happened to fixing the causation? The only way to fix a problem is to attack its cause. And guns do not CAUSE crime. They are merely tools used by criminals in the process of committing a crime AND by innocent individuals as protection against that crime.

While owning a gun may not be a natural right, it is the absolute best guarantee to one’s protection of his own rights. The government cannot always be expected to protect an individual’s liberties, as has been shown throughout history. Whether that protection is against a standing army, the government, or the criminal next door makes no difference. A person’s ability to protect oneself should always supersede government’s control over one’s life. Nobody, no entity, should EVER stand in the way of a person protecting oneself and family. Period. To believe otherwise is showing a complete lack of morality and is 100% unethical.

Article