Now that we’ve reviewed the First Amendment to the Constitution, let’s take a look at the most attacked and controversial of freedoms granted within the Constitution, the Second Amendment. The Second Amendment reads as follows:
“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.”
First, let us define Militia. What exactly is a Militia? The textbook or dictionary definition of a militia is as follows: An army composed of ordinary citizens rather than professional soldiers, a military force that is not part of a regular army and is subject to call for service in an emergency, the whole body of physically fit civilians eligible by law for military service. Many of the Founding Fathers distrusted a standing army of professional soldiers. They believed that a Militia comprising of citizens would keep the government “honest” and America’s borders secure. Their main fear of a standing army of professional soldiers was that in their experience a standing army could be utilized against the people thereby putting in jeopardy the Nation as a whole. They insisted that when a Bill of Rights was adopted and amended into the Constitution that a provision for the Citizens to defend themselves against oppression from their Federal government and defense against enemies from abroad and domestic by permitting the formation of a Militia and the individual arming of the Citizens of the Country be added thereto.
The argument that has been made by proponents of the First Amendment is that the reasoning behind the positioning of the amendment indicates its importance and therefore you can’t infringe upon that right because of its great importance. If that argument is to stand uncontested, then one must agree that the positioning of the Second Amendment makes it equally as important. It is my belief that the Founding Fathers understood the events, which would lead to an enslaving of the people and the actions, which would be taken by the government to oppress its Citizens. It is clear by the wording of the Second Amendment that it was intention of the Founding Fathers to establish the individual right to bear arms and therefore establish the right of the Citizens to own weapons.
Opponents to the Second Amendment have repeatedly claimed that it makes no guarantee of an individual right to own weapons. One argument that has been made is that gun ownership in Colonial America was scarce and uncommon. They’ve come to this conclusion by reviewing probate records from that era. They say that there is seldom any mention of a gun in the lists of assets found within those records. As an estate planner let me explain the holes found within this argument made by gun ownership opponents. Typically when an asset list is made for the intent of an estate items of worth are made more particular mention of. That is when a list of assets is made you would list furniture, jewelry, personal treasures, etc. Items which hold a particular value to you and your family which would be passed on to family members that they would consider valuable. An asset list would not include clothing, kitchen utensils, and other common household items typically found in everybody’s home because those items would not be of great importance in establishing a value. The absence of guns on the probate lists of the Colonial America era does not necessarily mean that gun ownership was uncommon. As a matter of fact gun ownership was more than common, more so than owning multiple suits of clothing. The obtaining of food was in most cases an individual endeavor. It was not common to go to the neighborhood grocery store and pick up your meat for the day. Another indication that gun ownership was common was the fact that many townships of the day shared Constables and County Sheriffs; this meant that the people were responsible for their own personal protection from highway men, thieves and Indian attacks and any other danger which should present itself during the course of daily life.
The Second Amendment has consistently come under attack by groups claiming that the mere existence of firearms promotes crime. Many Nations throughout the world have taken steps to ban the ownership of firearms to their citizenry with the hopes of lowering and eliminating crime. The outcome of these Draconian measures has been dismal for those Nations adopting such regulations. For example, a recent article on crime in England claimed that a person would be safer walking the streets of New York City, NY than walking the streets of London, England, and England has in place strict gun bans which include even novelty (toy, non-operational) guns. There was a recent incident in which a woman was attacked while walking home by a group of thugs desiring to do her harm, she had in her possession a toy handgun that she had taken from her grandchildren and presented it to her assailants to effectively escape. Upon reporting the incident to the local police she was arrested for threatening bodily harm with a dangerous weapon. England is not the only Nation to see an increase in violent crimes since adopting either all out gun bans or strict restrictions on personal gun ownership. Here in the United States we have seen the opposite happen as States have relaxed restrictions and provided Conceal Carry laws allowing their citizens the right to carry a firearm. The most recent of these would be Minnesota where the anti-gun lobby including several of the State’s Chief’s of Police insisted if the State passed a law allowing the individual right to carry a weapon “blood would run in the streets.” Over the past 7 years that the law has been on the books, murder rates have steadily decreased and crime has been kept at bay and in some areas decreased as well. This has been the trend in every State that has adopted less restrictive gun laws for its citizens.
When the Assault Weapons ban expired a few years ago and Bush refused to renew it, the anti-gun lobby once again bemoaned the fact that millions of children would needlessly die and that the U.S. murder rate would skyrocket to unparalleled precedents. This has of course not happened nor has the increase of crimes using assault style rifles occurred as they prophesied would happen. Time and time again the anti-gun lobby has been proven wrong in their dooms day predictions, yet we as a people still give credence to their drivel. Recently Stanford Law Professor Don Kates along with a Canadian law professor named Gary Mauser conducted a legal analysis in the which they reviewed dozens of existing studies from around the world on the subject of gun bans and the reduction of crime and murder rates. Their research proved the mantra from the anti-gun lobby to be not only wrong but blatantly false. There is no empirical evidence to support the statements made by the anti-gun lobby or their cohorts in the legislative bodies of government.
These defenses of the Second Amendment are not meant to imply that firearms are not used in the commission of crimes. Firearms are used in the commission of 66% of murders in the U.S. Yet even this number is misleading due to the fact that it includes crimes committed by guns obtained illegally. If the number were to be removed for crimes committed by legally obtained weapons the numbers would fall dramatically. After firearms the next weapons of choice are those classified by the FBI as other weapons, which include rocks, arrows, tools and so forth. Close behind those are knives and other cutting instruments. My intention in pointing this out is the fact that firearms are not the only weapons of choice for the committal of murder. Even if we as a society could effectively rid America of all firearms including those obtained through illegal means, murder would still be where it is today. In other words, guns don’t kill people, people kill people. It sounds trite but it is true. An SUV can’t drive itself into a pedestrian, and a gun cannot discharge itself, it is operator initiated in both instances.
In summation, the individual right to keep and bear arms is in fact a Constitutionally guaranteed right granted us by our Founding Fathers. In their minds the right to defend oneself from violent crime from criminals or oppression from government was one in the same. Any attempt to remove the individual right to keep and bear arms should be met with most strenuous resistance that we can sum up within ourselves. The only reason why anybody would want to remove our right to self armament is to enslave us and give themselves the ability to trample under foot the rest of our freedoms within the Constitution.
To view the study conducted by Professors Kates and Mauser , follow this link: http://www.law.harvard.edu/students/orgs/jlpp/Vol30_No2
No comments:
Post a Comment