The Right to Bear Arms

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. - United States Constitution, 2nd Amendment.

The right to keep and bear arms. It's one of our founding principles in the United States. It was such a hotly debated issue in the late 1700s before it was ratified as the 2nd amendment in 1791 that the founding fathers would not have vote to ratify the original constitution without it. Since then it's been the cornerstone of an ongoing debate among many in this country as to just how far this was meant to be taken.

Nowhere did this issue take more shape recently than when Washington DC passed a controversial ban on all handguns throughout the city 32 years ago. It was done with the best of intentions. Gun crime was out of control in the city and nothing done up to that point had seemed to be able to control it. The only problem is, now that law abiding citizens have no means to defend themselves, crime skyrocketed in DC. The ban had exactly the opposite intent it was designed for. Similar cases can be seen throughout this country recently, especially with all of the school and college shootings. Wherever guns are banned, only outlaws and psychopaths will have them. This leaves people with very little way to defend against armed intruders or attackers.

Today, news is out that the Supreme Court is about to rule on this very issue, brought about by the Washington DC handgun ban. Did that ban go too far? Do we as citizens indeed have the right to own guns? It seems we shall soon find out. It appears as though the Justices all agree that we do indeed have that right, but they have not given a formal ruling yet. Chances are good they'll uphold one of our most basic freedoms in America.

There is of course some room for debate. Afterall, the amendment does mention militias in its language. So does that mean only a citizen militia is legally allowed to arm? What about law enforcement such as local police? How about paramilitary groups out in the woods with their rifles and shotguns? Does this leave any room for the individual citizen to keep a gun in their home for personal defense? The gun control advocates out there would certainly seem to agree than you and I have no right to own one, because as they say, "guns kill". So what about knives? Baseball bats? Rocks? Clubs? Sharp scissors? Broken glass? A tire iron? Poisons? Electricity? Can these also not be used to kill? Are we to have rock control laws too? How about bat control laws? Should people who own tire irons and scissors be required to register those too? I think you can see that this line of logic is absurd on its face when looked at this way.

The only sane interpretation of the 2nd amendment is that we do in fact have a general right to bear arms, and that doesn't necessarily mean just guns either. So think long and hard about this. If this right is ever taken from us by activist judges on the court then the doom of the country can't be far behind.
"It is pointless to resist, my son." -- Darth Vader
"Resistance is futile." -- The Borg
"Mother's coming for me in the dragon ships. I don't like these itchy clothes, but I have to wear them or it frightens the fish." -- Thurindil

Well. I guess that's that then.

« Mississippi Primary Results
Saviors of Cyrodiil »

Posted on Mar 18, 2008 7:49 pm by Samson in: | 1 comment(s) [Closed]
While I'm sure that I could, fairly easily, come up with quite a bit to add to this, for now I'll keep my sentiments crystal clear and yet concise: Amen to that! The right to bear arms is what keeps us citizens rather than subjects.

<< prev 1 next >>
Comments Closed
Comments for this entry have been closed.

Forgot Password?

2 3 4 5 6 7 8
9 10 11 12 13 14 15
16 17 18 19 20 21 22
23 24 25 26 27 28 29
30 31