An interpretation of the second amendment might be the ability to defend and secure your life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness by owning arms. Another might be that the National Guard acts as a well regulated militia and is fulfilling the need of the security of the state and making life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness possible.
I remember the first time I received my first rifle. I was eight years old and my grandfather gave me a Kentucky B.B. Air Rifle. My father sat me down, explained to me how to care for the new rifle and the conditions for me having it. At no point was I ever allowed to point it at another human being. At no point was I allowed to shoot it without adult supervision. I was to always treat the rifle as if it were loaded. My second rifle, I received a .22 caliber, bolt action, single shot rifle when I was 12 years old. This is an Andrs's tradition. Each boy in the family received a .22 on his 12th birthday. Before I was allowed to use these weapons in an unsupervised manner I had to pass a gun safety course through the city. The same rules of safety and care applied, as it did with my next rifle a .308 Winchester lever action. I still have all of these weapons and treat each of them with the respect they well deserve. The rules got even more intense and the care even more unconditional after I joined the Marine Corps. From this account you can see that I have almost always been around guns. The respect and care for these weapons was constructed for me at a very early age and almost always accompanied with an explanation that it is my second most important right as stated in the Bill of Rights.
On one side of the argument, the side I was subjected to and grew up with, which became natural for me, was that the government would never have the right to disarm me. This right would allow me in the most extreme situation to defend my life and property. Also, this right would allow me to be involved in a militia, if I so chose, to defend my freedom if necessary. One could argue, that freedom can be infringed by the same institution that regulates my rights. This position should not be taken lightly. I do not think that the government is above the law. I also do not believe that they are all knowing and should be given the power to decide what is best for me.
Another position on this subject is one of trust for the people in power. One might say that they trust the government in most situations to do what is best for them. This trust might lead one to believe that giving up certain rights would be best for the country and people. Trust is also very important and can be a very good quality in a person. Trusting the government to provide all security for a person is one way to ensure safety and the ability to pursue life, liberty and happiness. One friend I would argue with in high school saw this issue in this manner. He was able to convey to me that he believed people were inherently bad and would cause more problems, injury, and death by being able to own guns than by giving control over to the government.
I believe the arguments begins with the interpretations of the written amendment in the Bill of Rights by our law makers. This goes back to the beginning of the semester when we were shown that not all meanings are inherent. The disconnect between people of different positions begins here. Some people are willing to let the government provide all necessary security, while others would prefer to provide their own while falling back on the second amendment. While I tend to believe that there are people who abuse their rights by misusing guns, thus providing an argument for revoking that right, it would seem, based on that logic, that every right could be abused in some form. While I don't necessarily see this as a means for revocation, I can understand why regulation is needed. But on the other hand, too much regulation and the right becomes arbitrary to the people who do not believe the government is sovereign.
I find this an incredibly important debate as well. In my opinion, the founding fathers and people of that time period did their very best to give an outline of what a functional government looked like. The fact that is has not been overthrown means the basic structure of the country has enough checks and balances throughout the system to allow enough power to act, but not enough to rule. It is important, however, not to be complacent as citizens and if the time would ever come, we have the right and responsibility to overturn a corrupt institution.
ReplyDeleteMost of the time I find myself falling on the democratic side of the ballot, however this issue has always reminded me that I don't agree with everything on the Democratic Party's platform. I also had a bb gun as a child and was taught to respect firearms. This respect should be put into anyone who handles or operates a firearm, but like you said people associate the object used in a crime to the crime. I have always believed that firearms don't kill people, people kill people, whether someone is shooting the firearm or someone has forgotten to be careful with one, the blame can't be placed on the firearm.
ReplyDelete