“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 states the Second Amendment to the Constitution of the United States, a decree that has become the subject of intensifying controversy in a violence prone society. The tragic misinterpretation of this document has enabled citizens to justify their purchasing of firearms at the expense of the rest of society. Citing self-defense or security as a way of legitimizing gun ownership, this widespread misconception has lead to horrific deaths and dark spectacles in American history. Columbine, Virginia Tech, and NIU all serve as examples of what gun ownership does to society. Until the Second Amendment is seriously reexamined, such unfortunate incidents will continue to plague the citizenry of the US.
In looking at the Second Amendment, it becomes evident that the right of the people to own firearms is conditional on their participation in a militia. The US military and its branches have replaced such an entity, which is no longer a part of America’s system of governance. The Second Amendment is therefore an invalid claim to justify the ownership of any firearm.
As I stated before in class, gun violence is not limited to impoverished areas; it can occur anywhere. That does not imply that people should have access to guns to protect themselves, as that would only promote escalation of arms. Firearms do not provide safety; rather they endanger the community by increasing the propensity for violence. Additionally, the presence of a firearm endangers its owner. According to the Brady Campaign, a non-profit and non-partisan center that advocates the prevention of gun violence, the likelihood of homicide and suicide increases by three times and five times respectively. With around 34.5% of all US households containing a firearm, the danger to society is a reality to a frighteningly high portion of America.
Websites such as East Coast Firearms fulfill a need for certain members of society who seek to obtain such weapons, but it does so at the expense of the American people. East Coast Firearms, to my dismay, was not content to sell handguns; the arsenal in their inventory could supply militant groups in the Middle East or Africa. I cannot understand any reason for which such weapons could be justified in the US.
Andrew stated that it would be impossible to eliminate the ownership and use of such weapons in the US, as people will always feel a need to defend themselves. Regardless of whether he is right or wrong, there are drastic reforms that must be initiated. A very simple solution would be to raise the cost of ammunition to exorbitantly high prices, as well as extending the waiting period between when firearms are requested and delivered. More extensive background checks could also mitigate the current situation.
I fundamentally believe that firearms present an undeniable danger to society. As cynical as this may sound, I will only have to wait for another Coumbine-style event to be proven right.
9 comments:
Yay! I liked this post mucho lol. I think it is ridiculous that some people believe that the first part of the second amendment 'A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State...' has anything to do with personal gun ownership. If the founding fathers had meant it that way they would have said something like, "armament of individuals, being necessary to the security of a free state..."
Lets be honest here, the true intent of the founding fathers' word is irrelevant, at the time a citizen owning a gun was generally considered a personal security measure. The second amendment is not "evident", it is interpretive, just as any other part of the Constitution. We read it through a modern perspective and apply it in ways and to situations the founding fathers did not and could not have imagined.
But Amanda, you forgot the second part: "...the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." Does that not cover at least the basics of personal gun ownership, if not more?
The biggest problem with the argument that "whether or not it is possible, steps must be taken to restrict gun ownership" lies in the fact that it is self-defeating and often makes problems worse. If we say we should ban gun ownership because it is morally required, but provide no solution to the problem, we're shooting ourselves in the foot. Relying on a moral imperative to solve practical problems isn't a valid solution to the issue at hand. This is the exactly problem with exceptional idealism. It advocates an end as the solution itself rather than providing a means to get to that point. It's dangerous, and in fact often hurts the ultimate aim of the program itself, a la the War on Drugs or pre-Roe v. Wade abortion rates.
You stated that raising the prices of ammunition exorbitantly would reduce the occurrence of gun violence. This is simply not the case, as it would be no more effective that raising the prices of guns. Someone, somewhere will always be able and willing to produce either guns or ammunition cheaply, and distribute it to whoever can pay. Even if the prices did inexplicably rise, there are already so many weapons and so much ammunition already on the market, nothing would change, with the notable exception that people would now probably be directly financing conflicts and murderous dictators simply by buying ammunition to hunt or defend themselves. Or to supply the military.
Perhaps I was unclear.
Earlier I advocated an increase in prices for ammunition, an extended waiting period between when a firearm is purchased and when it is received, and greater scrutiny into the background of the individual seeking to obtain these weapons. Granted, this would not eliminate gun ownership, but it would reduce both the number of guns and their availability. From there we could make the transition into the buy back initiative that Adam had mentioned. I agree that this is a difficult goal to achieve, but it is one that I believe is necessary for the safety of the American people.
As for the price increase, yes, there will of course be a supply on the black market that opposes any governmental initiative to limit firearm and ammunition possession. But I do not believe that all people, even gun owners, are willing to violate federal law simply to buy at cheaper prices. Consumers are concerned with lower prices, but most will not pursue them if the law prohibits such an action.
And Bubb Rubb, let me again stress that the government may in fact create new initiatives to take guns off the street. Simply because it has not yet happened does not mean that it never will. The Brady campaign has highlighted key loopholes that have enabled gun dealers to operate freely and to whatever party they choose. By closing these loopholes, those dealers will not be able to continue their current practices, thereby eliminating a crucial part of the gun market.
What I'm essentially arguing here is that the end these policies have in mind is not bad. What is bad is the means they go about fulfilling the ends. Many a campaign provides a blanket statement of aims with vague mentions of enforcement, all while failing to acknowledge the existence of underground gun markets. Until these are checked through some means of reducing the demand rather than the supply of guns, we are far more likely to see a reduction in gun ownership in the US. I feel as though policies such as the assault rifle ban are a mere lip service to these ideals and do nothing to reduce violence. They simply state assault rifles are illegal, define the punishment, and hope that fear of punishment is a deterrent. The effort should be made to provide an incentive-based program to get them off of the street in the first place, leaving them legal to own for those who want them for self-defense or even decoration and a waste for those who seek to use them for violent purposes.
antonio- i didn't forget that part, I was just trying to make the point that the first clause qualifies the second. The way I see it, the right of the people to keep and bear arms should pertain to a well regulated militia.
silencedogood- yes the constitution is open to interpretation, but one must also take into account the intentions of it. After all, the intention is what is open to being interpreted. Therefore, I disagree that the intent of the founding fathers' word is irrelevant. Furthermore, yes, as you said owning a gun was considered to be a personal security measure at the time, and yes things have changed. But I have a hard time believing that the guns we saw in class and the firepower available today can be seen as personal security measure.
I addressed my thoughts on the interpretation of the second amendment, which I feel very strongly about! in my blog post. "The Second Amendment is another right that needs to be protected. I first want to disagree with the person in class who said that the Second Amendment only applies to militias or an army. The Second Amendment applies to the individuals who made up the militias in case an overthrow of the government was needed. Guns are dangerous and they do kill people, but they can also be used for protection. The Second Amendment is important to our security as a country and as individuals." And as Perry pointed out, the second amendment clearly protects the rights of individuals to own guns!
Post a Comment