A letter to the editor in the Nov. 7, issue of the Lake Country Echo stated the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution does not give individuals the right to bear arms. The writer said this was a misconception promulgated by the National Rifle Association and suggested we should do some research and carefully read the language of the amendment.
I remember the extensive discussions of all the amendments during my time at the University of Minnesota where I majored in (American) history. At that time, the Second Amendment did not receive anywhere near the attention it has received in the last two decades. While I am not a member of the NRA, I know they are committed to their interpretation of this amendment, which I happen to agree with totally.
Note that I said their position is an interpretation of the words; it is not a misconception. The position that the Second Amendment does not give individuals the right to bear arms is also an interpretation. Whether you buy into one or the other interpretation, the courts determine what is legal. And we have not heard the last word from the courts on this issues.
For those who haven't read the text of this amendment lately, here it is, "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."
It would be convenient to ignore the first half of the sentence and rest all the arguments on the second portion. That would make it pretty easy because the second half is clear and unambiguous to me - but of course I don't have the skills to make crystal clear water appear as verbally opaque as mud as the lawyers on both sides of the issue can. On the other hand, gun control proponents focus nearly exclusively on the first portion of the sentence and posit that this amendment obviously only references a military/national guard context and should not be interpreted beyond that.
As I said previously, it's really the courts that have defined and will continue to refine the exact interpretation and application of the amendment. In both individual states and on the national stage, many cases have been argued and no one position has come out as a clear, unequivocal winner. At present, with certain exceptions, the courts generally find it acceptable under the Second Amendment for federal, state and local jurisdictions to: regulate or not regulate militias; enact or not enact child-safety lock legislation; ban or permit handgun possession; regulate or not regulate handgun possession; prohibit or allow the carrying of concealed firearms and/or weapons; regulate or not regulate the carrying of concealed firearms and/or weapons; ban or permit assault weapons; and prohibit the possession of firearms by defined groups of persons - former felons, mentally ill, etc.; require or not require the registration of firearms; and many other measures.
I understand the opponents of the "right to bear arms" who cite the tragedies involving people who use guns to commit horrendous crimes. From my college days, I remember Charles Whitman, the Texas sniper, who killed 15 and wounded 31 people in August 1966 in Austin. The recent wave of shootings at schools throughout the country is also being used to support the position that all guns should be banned.
The thought process behind this position must be that it is easier to ban the weapon than to identify the type of person likely to commit such crimes. While that is a logical philosophical point, it is hardly practical to ban all guns. That approach could be effective only if the state is ready to automatically execute anyone who uses a gun to commit a crime or who is found in possession of a gun. Most modern societies that have banned individual gun ownership have experienced significant increases in crime because the criminals are confident their victims cannot protect themselves.
Many of us believe in the basic right of self-defense. Virtually all courts have recognized the rights of individuals to defend themselves and their families. We also have the right to protect our property, but to a lesser degree than protecting our person. When confronted by a person who appears ready to use deadly force to harm you, you have the right to respond with deadly force. If he's stealing your bicycle, you cannot use deadly force to prevent him from doing so.
What this really boils down to is that we all have our opinions, based on our interpretations of the words in the Second Amendment. Yours is as good as mine and vice versa. The only ones that count legally are the decisions of the local, state and federal courts. And they have ruled both ways on nearly all issues. So, go figure. For a really in-depth look at this subject, I'd suggest using the wikipedia.org discussion of the Second Amendment. It's factual, non-partisan, and very thorough.
This is a great subject that we can discuss logically and emotionally until we're all exhausted but I doubt a satisfactory interpretation for either or both sides is on the horizon. At this point, Larry the Cable Guy's discussion of the "Right to Bare Arms" makes a lot more sense.
Well, that's what's been on my mind.
