“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.”
That’s the amendment as written in the Bill of Rights of the Constitution of the United States of America. Right beneath the First Amendment. You might say that it was thought to be so damn important that it was put second, right after the freedom of speech and religion stuff. And it is damn important, and it exists for a reason, and you probably don’t know that reason or you don’t want to know that reason, or you don’t care about that reason. Well too freaking bad. Until you understand what the amendment means and what you’d be throwing away by getting rid of it, or by infringing upon it, then I’m sorry but you’re being an idiot. Sorry, not pulling punches on this one, this is Constitutional Law, a.k.a. the basis of all law in this country. Plus it’s not like anyone reads this thing anyways.
So we’ll start with the Bill of Rights. The Bill of Rights is in the Constitution because some of our founding fathers had the foresight to understand that not everyone was going to be a strict constitutionalist. That some people would assume that any power not strictly forbidden the government in the Constitution would be in the government’s power. Read the Constitution sans the amendments. If you were to interpret the Constitution as laying down only the things that the government must do, but not including everything the government could do, then damn, the American people could be totally rogered from here to sundown. The Constitution does little to protect the people it governs. Enter the Bill of Rights. You ever hear anyone say “Hey man, you’re treading on my Article 3, Section II rights here!” No, no you haven’t, because Article 3, Section II has to do with the powers of the Judicial Branch of government. What you do hear people say is “Hey man, you’re treading on my first amendment rights!” That’s because pretty much all our rights stem from the Bill of Rights. It is our only protection from a government that has left strict constitutionality in the dust long ago.
During it’s drafting and debate, the right of the states to have militias and the right’s of the people to bear arms was not something hotly debated. It was seen as the best damn protection the people of the United States had to avoid becoming a kingdom. The majority of back and fourth that occurred in the House and Senate was of specific wording to insure that the government wouldn’t be able to rules lawyer their way into stripping the people of their weapons. The purpose of the amendment wasn’t to ensure people would be able to hunt, or protect themselves from criminals, or to protect themselves from foreign invaders. The purpose was to allow people to protect themselves from the government, specifically a government which had a standing army and controlled the State’s abilities to keep their own munitions and armament. (Read Federalist Paper No. 46 if you’re not convinced about this one). Ultimately the purpose was to allow the people to protect all those other rights they were given in the Bill of Rights from a tyrannical government. Cause let’s face it, if a tyrannical government is good at anything, it’s good at wiping it’s butt with pieces of paper that declare citizen’s rights. So in order to ensure that the Bill of Rights would stand, the people were given the right to arm themselves so they could protect these rights if the government became tyrannical.
The individual’s right to keep and bear arms (and not just a militia’s right to do such) was reinforced in a Kentucky case in 1822, which struck down a state law saying you couldn’t conceal your weapon, claiming it as an infringement of the individual’s right to bear arms (Guy was being fined $100 for having a sword cane). Then in 1856, as part of the Dred Scott V. Sanford Supreme Court case it was written that slaves who were afforded the full rights of the U.S. Constitution would include the right to keep and carry arms where ever they went.
Infringement of our rights didn’t start until the 1930’s, when congress passed a series of laws aiming to take guns away from organized criminals, which had sprouted up after prohibition had passed. The event that got the ball rolling was the Valentine’s Day massacres. (begin sarcasm) The acts that passed really did a good job of stopping mob violence (end sarcasm). What they did do, was create another avenue of revenue for organized crime syndicates. “You mean we can sell booze and guns at massively inflated prices! Heck yes!” 1938 saw the passing of the law that required logging names and addresses of gun sellers and buyers, and excluded some people from owning guns (namely criminals convicted of a select number of crimes). 1968, post Kennedy assassination, increased the list of people who couldn’t buy guns. It now included all convicted felons, the mentally unstable, and drug users. 2004 saw the Brady Act, which set up the national database used to ensure that only people who can legally buy a gun are able to buy a gun without the black market surcharge (Cause lets face it, it’s been illegal for criminals to have guns for a loooooooong time, but they still seem to have them).
Luckily in 2008 and 2010 two Supreme Court cases basically ruled that, and I’m paraphrasing here, “No really, individual people have the right to bear arms”.
So that’s where we are right now. Criminals, drug users, and the mentally unfit can’t buy guns from legal arm’s sellers who also have to be registered with the ATF. Everyone who buys a gun has to be checked into a database before they buy a gun. Everyone who buys a gun’s name and address is kept on file at the federal level. So the question remains, are we still able to defend ourselves from a tyrannical government and can we do so if we make more laws?
Don’t get me wrong here. I’m cool with convicted felons and the mentally ill not being able to own firearms, and the Supreme Court did uphold the ability of congress and the states to make it illegal for convicted felons and the mentally ill to own firearms (in those 2008 and 2010 cases mentioned earlier).
But the question now is? What other restrictions can we add to “make things safer.” And my counter question is: If we give up more ground on this right, on our only right to defend the other rights we have against an unjust government. If we make more areas “No gun zones” a.k.a. “Easy targets for nut jobs with guns”. If we make more databases and licenses which make it easy for the government to disarm you. If we make it more expensive to own the weapons we need to keep the government in check (And if you’re of the opinion that the government would never, ever, ever, in a million years try and stomp on your rights then you need to read some f*&king history books my friend. History has done a good job of showing us that the only thing that keeps people in power from trying to take your rights away wholesale is the threat of force). If we expand “gun control” are we more or less safe from the government. If the answer is less safe, then we’ve infringed on the 2nd Amendment and we’ve made it easy for a tyrannical government to strip our Constitutionally provided rights. Because that’s what the 2nd Amendment protects.
It’s not there for hunting. It’s not their for protecting yourself from attack or home invasion. It’s there so you can protect your Constitutionally given rights. And I don’t know about you, but I think those rights are pretty damn important.
