The 2nd Amendment: A Dual Perspective

The 2nd Amendment: Decipherage


People like their guns, there's no doubt about it. Maybe its not possible for one to understand if one doesn't own a gun, has never shot a gun, and generally only hears the negative outcomes of gun use. After all, its hard to get too excited about someone hitting a target with a bullet, but its much more simple to understand the disturbance resulting from gun murders, gun accidents, and gun crimes. So its easy for someone like me, one whom many would call a liberal, to form an opinion about guns that is uncompromisingly negative, but considering the large population of US citizens who are enthusiastic and unwaivering about their Constitutional right to bear arms, someone like me who believes in democracy can see the need to fully understand the facts and opinions at hand.

I think that there is a looming problem in politics today, as more and more ordinary citizens are becoming drawn to the topics of their rights and what is right for the good of our nation. I've found myself guilty of this phenomenon which plagues the collective intellect of the concerned citizens of this great nation, and this problem is polarization. We are a nation extremely succeptible to propaganda, as we search for black and white, right or wrong, yes or no. We hear certain arguments loudly, and they influence us to believe what they are saying, but then when we hear the opposing side, regardless of the validity of the arguments, we tend to see those that make those arguments as misled, stupid, sometimes even evil.

This is blatantly apparent in the argument between those for and against gun control. People who are against gun control like to use the word "liberal" as a derogatory term, and attempt to paint liberals as evil communists who want to take away their guns and trash the Constitution, so the government can exact excruciating control over our lives, and we can be overrun by criminals who go around killing people for fun. On the flipside, liberals of the more radical persuasion forgo the political terms, and just refer to the other side as "gun-nuts." Gun nuts are people who live way out in the country where no crime ever takes place, but they feel the need to arm themselves to the gills. They really just have a good time shooting off guns, like children playing with toys, and it doesn't matter to them how easily a criminal in the inner city can get a hold of a gun, or two, or twelve, and unlimited bullets, and take out as many people as they want... after all, who cares if a bunch of black people get shot?

Neither of these points of view are accurate or helpful in the understanding of the actual situation. Seeing the other side as evil makes way for unwaivering opinions, and its this kind of stubbornness that prevents a real solution, and real enlightenment. So I as a leftist shall now attempt to lean towards the middle as much as I can in order to find the truth and common sense beneath all the rhetoric.

First of all, I don't think anyone can argue with the fact that we should take the Constitution into consideration as the main point of reference, considering we are discussing laws here. And the 2nd Amendment should therefore be disclosed in its original text:


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.


OK, well no wonder there's confusion here, this is about as vague as it gets.

I've had discussions with avid progunners about the wording of this amendment, and it never fails to amaze me how they always make the same belittling assumption about the question I'm raising. Here's basically how the discussion goes: I say "Well, the word 'arms' doesn't specifically mean 'gun'," and then they say "Well, what do you think it means, these?" and then they wave their arms around. Very funny. I don't really think anyone who cares enough about gun control to try to have a civilized discussion about the Constitution would ever argue that the wording of this amendment referred to one's upper body limbs. Regardless, gun proponents think that lowly of the mental capability of anyone who questions their interpretation of this amendment.

Here's what Merriam Webster's Dictionary says as the definition of "Arm", and yes, I did intentionally leave out the first noun definition, regarding the upper limbs of human beings.


Main Entry:
arm
Function:
noun
Usage:
often attributive
Etymology:
Middle English armes (plural) weapons, from Anglo-French, from Latin arma
Date:
13th century

1a: a means (as a weapon) of offense or defense;


See, now this is why we raise this concern. The amendment guarantees that our right to keep arms shall not be infringed, but some could argue that a sharp stick could qualify as an Arm, or by today's terror standards, I suppose nail clippers could be Arms. On the other end of the spectrum, a nuclear weapon is an Arm, as is any biochemical weapon, bomb, or missile. So I don't think anyone could argue that there needs to be a line drawn somewhere, and a limit to which types of arms should be legal. After all, the 2nd amendment does not ever state that the people should not be denied the right to have any type of Arm they want, it only states that they should be allowed to have Arms.

Here's where some liberals would see an excuse to outlaw several types of guns, and progunners would feel threatened by this logic, but we must not forget that there is more to this amendment than allowing arms. The portion which should be key in deciding where to draw the line on which Arms should be allowed to the public is the portion regarding the purpose for this allowed ownership, as stated in the 2nd amendment, because "A well regulated Militia, [is] necessary to the security of a free State"

All citizens are potentially members of a present or future militia, should the sudden need arise for one, and therefore we should be allowed to be armed as such in preparation for this event. This is a question of security, according to the text, and so in order to see where to draw the line, the question that should be asked is "what weapons are necessary to protect the security of our free state, and maintain a well regulated militia." Any regulations barring such needed arms, or allowing arms in excess of what is needed, contradict the Constitution, and are therefore invalid as law. The Constitution makes it very clear the reason for such a clause.

So how do we answer the question posed? How can we know what weapons are necessary to protect the security of our free state, and maintain a well organized militia? Some would say we would have to look at each weapon on a one-by-one basis. But even then, one would have to look at the feasibility of using this weapon to protect our nation, and then the question becomes "from whom?" Are we protecting ourselves from an oppressive US government, or from foreign invaders, perhaps aliens from outer space? Let's omit the aliens, because if they're here, and they want to kill us, its time to start hoping the government can pull something off.

That having been said, lets think for example about handguns. What exactly can a handgun do against foreign invaders? If these invaders made it into our nation, through the Coast Guard, unable to be taken down by our own fighter jets, or any of our military, what exactly do you plan to do with a handgun? In the same manner, what if our government is going ballistic on us, and we need to take it down... do you think a handgun is going to help? The government's weapons are so much more sophisticated than any gun we may own, especially some dinky little handgun.

Its time for we the people to make a decision. The technology of weapons has far surpassed the so-called protection we are allowed to carry for the purpose of protecting our free nation. Carrying guns now is only for the purpose of protecting ourselves from criminals, and by asserting our right to carry guns, we are allowing them to do the same, which is why we are afraid. We see stories on the news that make us believe that there are tons of people out there just itching to kill people, but they only hesitate because someone might have a gun. The truth is that people don't kill people for no reason, typically. Also, its very rare that someone is stopped from killing someone by a gun wielding citizen.

Guns alone have no value in protecting the security of our free state, so if we are really concerned with this patriotic noble duty, we should give up the fight solely for guns, and work towards allowing militias to also have things like antiaircraft guns, heat seeking missiles, tanks, and maybe some of those sound rays that the government has that can stop crowds of people in their tracks. Without these things, we are helpless to really protect our nations security, and only adding to the murder rate with these "one at a time" arms, only useful for person to person combat. Together with these larger, more effective weapons, guns may be very useful in maintaining an American insurgency in the case of a hostile takeover, but without them, guns aren't going to save us.