Friday, December 2, 2011
"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."
The Second Amendment of the US Constitution, as ratified by the States, is one of the most controversial amendments of the original 10 amendments. The only right covered in this amendment is the right of the American people to possess firearms. The plain text of this amendment states that the federal government can not infringe upon, or prohibit, the possession of firearms. What is not covered explicitly in this amendment is the extent of the regulation of that possession of firearms. Pro-gun advocates view the word infringe as ANY type of regulation regarding firearms. Anti-gun advocates view the word infringe as everything short of complete abolition of the possession of all firearms. Common sense tells us that there should be a happy medium.
Taking into consideration that when this amendment was written, only four types of firearms existed, each sharing a common characteristic. The four firearms (pistol, shotgun, rifle/musket, and cannon) were all single shot muzzle loaders, and were valuable items, essential to the survival of those early Americans. Today, the ease of access to firearms, increased magazine capacity, increased range and power, along with incredible variety of firearms has changed to face of "keeping and bearing arms".
The main target of anti-gun advocates are hand guns and so-called "assault rifles". Hand guns are targeted because of their ease of concealment as well as ease of access. Assault rifles are categorized (by the anti-gun side) as being semi-automatic (no manual ejection/insertion of cartridges and a single shot stemming from a single trigger pull) and having high-capacity magazines (this definition is hazy and varies from person to person).
Anti-gun advocates, in order to comply with the second amendment, have focused on increased regulation of firearms. By imposing more restrictions on the sale and possession of firearms, it becomes more and more difficult for citizens to own them, resulting in a decrease in the amount of lawful firearms sold and possessed. Many believe that if it becomes "too much of a pain" to get the necessary licenses and permits, most would-be gun owners will give up on purchasing new firearms. The largest flaw in this thinking is the fact that the vast majority of the gun crimes that are cited by the anti-gun establishment are committed by those who have illegally obtained their firearms, thus circumventing not only the second amendment, but any and all additional laws set in place to regulate firearms purchasing and possession. Pro-gun advocates use this argument and rely heavily on the ambiguity of the second amendment to maintain their gun rights.
The sheer number of court cases involving second amendment challenges and the challenges of the challenges prohibit their listing on this post. As a summary thought, reasonable regulation of firearms is a sound thought. Over regulation to essentially ban firearms is unconstitutional. This amendment will be a battleground for years to come with neither side fully achieving their respective goal.
The Second Amendment of the US Constitution, as ratified by the States, is one of the most controversial amendments of the original 10 amendments. The only right covered in this amendment is the right of the American people to possess firearms. The plain text of this amendment states that the federal government can not infringe upon, or prohibit, the possession of firearms. What is not covered explicitly in this amendment is the extent of the regulation of that possession of firearms. Pro-gun advocates view the word infringe as ANY type of regulation regarding firearms. Anti-gun advocates view the word infringe as everything short of complete abolition of the possession of all firearms. Common sense tells us that there should be a happy medium.
Taking into consideration that when this amendment was written, only four types of firearms existed, each sharing a common characteristic. The four firearms (pistol, shotgun, rifle/musket, and cannon) were all single shot muzzle loaders, and were valuable items, essential to the survival of those early Americans. Today, the ease of access to firearms, increased magazine capacity, increased range and power, along with incredible variety of firearms has changed to face of "keeping and bearing arms".
The main target of anti-gun advocates are hand guns and so-called "assault rifles". Hand guns are targeted because of their ease of concealment as well as ease of access. Assault rifles are categorized (by the anti-gun side) as being semi-automatic (no manual ejection/insertion of cartridges and a single shot stemming from a single trigger pull) and having high-capacity magazines (this definition is hazy and varies from person to person).
Anti-gun advocates, in order to comply with the second amendment, have focused on increased regulation of firearms. By imposing more restrictions on the sale and possession of firearms, it becomes more and more difficult for citizens to own them, resulting in a decrease in the amount of lawful firearms sold and possessed. Many believe that if it becomes "too much of a pain" to get the necessary licenses and permits, most would-be gun owners will give up on purchasing new firearms. The largest flaw in this thinking is the fact that the vast majority of the gun crimes that are cited by the anti-gun establishment are committed by those who have illegally obtained their firearms, thus circumventing not only the second amendment, but any and all additional laws set in place to regulate firearms purchasing and possession. Pro-gun advocates use this argument and rely heavily on the ambiguity of the second amendment to maintain their gun rights.
The sheer number of court cases involving second amendment challenges and the challenges of the challenges prohibit their listing on this post. As a summary thought, reasonable regulation of firearms is a sound thought. Over regulation to essentially ban firearms is unconstitutional. This amendment will be a battleground for years to come with neither side fully achieving their respective goal.
1 comments:
I agree with that... and to something that Charlton Heston said while president of the NRA about "Cold Dead Fingers"
You can further the argument of quoting violent crime rates post and pre Concealed Carry in the states that have enacted such laws.
But my question is.... does a private citizen have a need to have a M2 .50 Browning mounted in their truck? (not that I'd turn a free Ma'Duece down) or less sarcastically the need for the full rock and roll fully automatic Thompson .45 Cal sub machine gun. which with the proper permits are legal to own and operate.
Post a Comment