The Second Amendment; Should we keep it or Loose it? The Second Amendment has been mentioned quite frequently in the Presidential election. There are candidates who support and do not support the Second Amendment. Some politicians believe that the Second Amendment only applies to militias and not private citizens. 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. ” As previously stated, Justice Scalia believed that the Second Amendment did in fact extend to the private citizen where as Justice Stevens did not.
When reading the D. C. v. Heller case, you can see how the Second Amendment can be interpreted in different ways. Have you ever wondered if the Second Amendment truly applies to citizens as well as a Militia? A large number of Americans believe that the Second Amendment applies to American citizens as well as those in a militia. The late Supreme Court Justice, Justice Scalia believed it did in the Washington D. C. v. Heller case. Justice Stevens, the dissenting opinion for D. C. v. Heller insinuated that the Second Amendment only applied to being part of a militia.
This case was a very important case that the Supreme Court decided on. However, the afore mentioned court case was about whether or not it was a violation of Mr. Heller’s rights. The D. C. law that stated that a weapon had be secured in such a way that it was not readily accessible. There are scholars who would lead people to believe that the Second Amendment does not apply to the citizen. The Second Amendment has inspired authors for and against to write about what they think the Second Amendment means. The forefathers have even spoken out about the private citizens owning firearms.
Thomas Paine, a writer during the Revolutionary War period has this to say about private firearm ownership: “The supposed quietude of a good man allures the ruffian; while on the other hand, arms, like law, discourage and keep the invader and the plunderer in awe, and preserve order in the world as well as property. The balance of power is the scale of peace. The same balance would be preserved were all the world destitute of arms, for all would be alike; but since some will not, others dare not lay them aside. And while a single nation refuses to lay them down, it is proper that all should keep them up.
Horrid mischief would ensue were one-half the world deprived of the use of them; for while avarice and ambition have a place in the heart of man, the weak will become a prey to the strong. The history of every age and nation establishes these truths, and facts need but little arguments when they prove themselves. “- Thomas Paine, “Thoughts on Defensive War” in Pennsylvania Magazine, July 1775. It would seem that those who lived during the Revolutionary War period understood the significance of private citizens owning firearms. It is obvious that the U. S. as become more civilized since the 18TH century. However, does that mean the citizens and elected officials should do away with the idea of private citizens owning and possessing firearms based on that premise? Even media sources such as the New York Times comments on the issue.
The article “End the Gun Epidemic in America” that was written by the New York Times Editorial Board states the following: “It is a moral outrage and a national disgrace that civilians can legally purchase weapons designed specifically to kill people with brutal speed and efficiency. These are weapons f war, barely modified and deliberately marketed as tools of macho vigilantism and even insurrection. ” Granted, some of these firearms that can be purchased are a bit questionable as to why a private citizen would need a certain type of firearm. For instance, a Class III License allows a law abiding citizen to purchase a machine gun. To specifically state that all firearms were created for war is far-fetched. Can you use the civilian variants for combat? Yes, you can. However, they will not have the same capabilities as the military versions of these firearms.
For example, the M-16A2 and the M-16A4 have three different positions the user can choose. The three positions of the selector are safe, semi, and auto. When the selector is on “safe”, the weapon will not fire. If the weapon is on “semi”, the weapon will fire one round at a time when the trigger is depressed. When the selector is placed in the “auto” position, the weapon will fire a three round burst. The civilian model only has two selections and they are “safe” and “fire”. It is safe to say the military variant is designed to be used in a theater of combat.
When you look at other countries around the world in regards to firearm ownership by private citizens, you see a stark contrast with the United States. There are pundits who will state that American are safer or not safer because of firearm ownership. There were a total of 16,779 involving firearms so far this year, according to gunviolencearchive. org. There are approximately 318 million people living in the U. S. at this time. So, if you were to calculate the actual percentage of the population that these incidents affect, it would be . 00527642%. That seems to be low considering the numbers for that type of incident.
However, that is not to state that any accidents or deaths involving firearms is acceptable. It is meant to only demonstrate the actual percentage of the population that is affected by firearms. Furthermore, this does not include the mental anguish this may cause family and friends. This is only meant to include just those people who are injured or killed by firearms. If you look at vehicle deaths, you will notice that the number of people affected are more than double that of firearm incidents. The number of traffic fatalities according to newsweek. com is 38,300 people.
The percentage of people killed is . 01204402%. Even if you look at those numbers and statistics, they are still comparably low. Judging by the numbers of people affected, does that mean we should make stricter laws governing the use and ownership of firearms. How has that worked out so far? That is not to say the government should not make laws governing the use and ownership. Not everyone should possess a firearm just like not everyone should not possess a driver’s license. Should the government state or federal write laws to mandate that a person wishing to possess a firearm take a training course first?
In the military, before you are allowed to fire your assigned weapon, you must learn and know the safety rules. These rules if violated, carry penalties such as fines a ted, carry penalties such as fines and imprisonment. The handling and discharging of your assigned weapon is not taken lightly. It is a serious responsibility entrusted to all service members. One of the reasons why Japan chose not to invade was because the American people were allowed to own firearms. Even Admiral Isoroku Yamamoto was quoted saying: “You cannot invade the mainland United States. There would be a rifle behind each blade of grass. This could be debatable. However, one cannot ignore that private ownership could very well have served as a deterrent of invasion by the Japanese during World War II. Today when you watch or read the news you will see some story about a shooting. You may read the story and think to yourself is firearm ownership still viable? When you look at the percentages of people affected directly when it comes to firearm incidents, the numbers are very low. Unfortunately, you cannot predict if a person is going to use that firearm for good or for evil intentions. This is why it’s called human nature.
Human beings are hard to predict at times. Maybe, that person could have had a bad day and want to take it out on someone. Does that mean we should punish the whole population because of a few that choose to do misuse these firearms? Some people would say yes. It is understandable why some Americans would say yes to this idea. It is a reasonable assumption that most people if not everyone wants to feel safe either on the street or in their own house. When you dial 911, the police may not respond in time. So, wouldn’t it be prudent to retain this right instead of getting rid of or severely restricting this right?
