Like many Americans, I watched as Democrats filibustered June 15 for more gun control in response to the Orlando terrorist attack.
While doing this and scrolling through Twitter, I realized that many people are unaware of the actual gun rights afforded to U.S. citizens. We can’t change laws and violate the Second Amendment, and the Constitution, based on fear and misunderstanding.
This isn’t just aimed at progressives. There seems to be a lot of conservatives who have forgotten the amendment they so love to try and protect.
One isn’t all
People think that just because there is a national feeling of being scared they can change laws to fit their agenda. The Second Amendment is clear in its purpose regardless of what year it is.
Constitutionally speaking, you do have an individual right to own a gun. Many Americans, including the senators who took part in the filibuster, wrongly believe that the Constitution gives a collective right to individuals.
The Second Amendment has “right of the people” in its second half. In all the amendments in the Bill of Rights — and, subsequently, the Constitution — the writers are referring to an individual right of citizens whenever they include this phrase.
A collective right is never established in the Second Amendment. Individuality is what makes the amendment significant.
As to why “well regulated Militia” was included when the amendment is an individual right, justification is your answer.
This was a common practice throughout 18th century America as many state constitutions included amendments that followed odd (to 21st century America) pattern. Section 20 of the original Rhode Island Constitution states, “The liberty of the press being essential to the security of freedom in a state.”
This wording is not justification for gun control — it’s 18th century grammatical structure at work. The Framers weren’t saying the only reason to have guns is to be in the militia, they’re actually just writing well.
Government is the real danger
It’s impossible to appreciate the amendment’s necessity if you don’t understand what the Framers saw as the actual risk.
The first part of the Second Amendment says, “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State.” Those last six words say it all. Guns are necessary to keep the citizenry protected from the possibility of a government’s overreach.
History has shown that governments, at some point in a state’s history, become afraid of the citizenry and begin to react tyrannically.
Rather than a filibuster addressing terrorism on all scales, or congressman demanding their fellow politicians act on their fear, we — as a nation — have collectively focused on the Second Amendment than focusing on the real problem.
A subjective argument is that modern guns are not protected under the Second Amendment because the Framers could not have foreseen this kind of weaponry. In this logic, we should scrap the First Amendment since they couldn’t predict Twitter. The Fourth Amendment should go, too, since devices are becoming smaller in size.
Scrapping long-tested, well-thought out amendments due to a lack of grasp over the real problem is why it’s difficult to get a bill through Congress.
No-fly, no guns, no merit
There is a secret government document with no oversight that often has non-terrorists placed on it. Not letting people purchase guns because they’re on a list, which isn’t a crime, is unconstitutional.
The Fifth Amendment states, “No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury.” The Sixth Amendment allows, “(the accused) to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation.”
Both of these amendments go directly against what you’re saying. A conservative is supposed to uphold the values the Constitution presented.
Stop letting our fear leads to extreme and dire behavior. It’s incorrect, and dangerous, to assume that all past tragedies could have been prevented with gun control.
If we ignore the law, everything is left up to those with power. That’s not this country. Those are not our values.
Opinion columnist Jorden Smith is a political science junior and the president of the College Republicans. He can be reached at [email protected]
The law is ignored all the time when it comes to SocDems … heck, Nixon was a piker compared to Hillary Clinton and all of her scandals.
“A subjective argument is that modern guns are not protected under the
Second Amendment because the Framers could not have foreseen this kind
of weaponry. In this logic, we should scrap the First Amendment since
they couldn’t predict Twitter. The Fourth Amendment should go, too,
since devices are becoming smaller in size.”
Aside from the last dude you interviewed in that video, this is the worst argument for the 2nd amendment I’ve seen in a while. Forms of mass communication existed well before the first amendment was ever dreamed of. Other than the scale of audience, there is no difference between what you read on twitter and what you used to find in a news pamphlet. And we should scrap the 4th amendment because our devices are getting smaller? What? That’s like saying we should paint this room blue because this cheese smells like Havarti.
And the reason the modern guns argument holds weight is because of the difference between a firearm in 1790 killing one man and a firearm in 2016 killing many. That’s a fundamental difference behind the sheer power granted to one person abetted by unforeseeable advances in technology.
I’m not sure whether to laugh or cry at this bumbling and naive “interpretation.” of the 2nd Amendment. I’m guessing the writer attended a few 1-hour “NRA U” seminars which they offer here and there on college campuses such as Ohio State. He certainly never studied the colonial period or the Revolution at an advanced level under any scholar specializing in the period and the culture. I hope the writer enjoyed his free 1 year membership and NRA swag. He managed to completely insult Washington, Madison, Virginia Governor, Patrick Henry, and half a dozen other players and Enlightenment thinkers by not even mentioning how they influenced the writing of the 2nd Amendment and what it meant in the context in which it was written. Just nice syntax? Good grief! .