The Second Amendment-Literally Fighting for Your RIghts

Abstract: Due to several mass shootings in the past decade much debate has been brought up about a citizens right to bear arms. Should there be limits to what a citizen can possess, what types of weapons should be available to the public? The debate has brought out the worst from both sides of the spectrum. Yet despite the harsh rhetoric, there lies a truth, this Amendment helps citizens to protect all the others.

The Second Amendment is an essential right to American society and should not be modified in anyway, expect to clarify that every citizen and not just a militia should retain the right to own firearms. The American mindset stems from the idea that we will not listen to the authority of anyone, we have made rebellion a national pastime. Many people today have cited what they perceive as a rise in random violent shootings as a reason that “something must be done.” I hold that these people mean well in their hearts, but they are approaching a solution in a knee jerk fashion and not thinking through the real source of the problem. If the study of history has taught us anything, it is that the weapons that man fashion are not the source of the problem, merely tools. It’s the man who fires the arrow, swings the sword, thrusts the spear, or fires the gun that holds the problem. Violence will not be eliminated if you merely deny access to certain weapons, it has been carried out throughout history with much less that a 9mm Glock.

The debate over the Second Amendment has ebbed and flowed in the public mind for decades. It seems that every time a tragedy involving firearms occurs, there is a call for regulation. Cries from the fringes often advocate a total ban on firearms. This argument has spawned its own caricatures, those that support the right seem to be seen as xenophobic paranoids who stash their hoard of AR-15’s in preparation for the second coming of 1776. Those who are opposed to the right are seen as tree hugging hippies so lost in their naivete and idealism they refuse to listen to logic. Now those are gross exaggerations of the extreme, but both sides of the debate make some valid points. Yet the point is that while the Second Amendment seems archaic, it is an essential right for this free society. Much paper has been used arguing the legality and technicalities of this Amendment. Books have been written on the exact meaning of phrases, the use of commas and what was meant by “militia” and “the.” Perhaps a look back into history is necessary, to remind those involved that the heart of this matter is much older than firearms.

For nearly as long as mankind has walked this Earth, he has carried some sort of weapon. Be it the Greek hoplite and his dory, the Roman legionnaire and his gladius, or an American farmer with a musket, man has had need of various weapons. A major reason the British descended upon Lexington and Concord in 1775 was to disarm the disgruntled colonists. The British knew that if they could eliminate the stockpile of arms the rebels had, they could nip this revolution in the bud. The colonists knew that they could not fight the might of the British army with sticks and strong words, they needed their own rifles. This is why when a Bill of Rights was added to the Constitution, the amendment following our right to free speech, is the right to bear arms. Those who created these amendments knew fully well that to effectively combat what they saw as tyranny, they needed more than strong words.

When Rome faced the Civil Wars of Sulla and Caesar the people who were the target of the proscriptions and death sentences never once called out against the sword, saying that if it was only removed from the public’s hands, then the violence would cease. Such is the argument today concerning firearms. The Romans knew that it wasn’t the weapon that was to be feared, but the men wielding them. Those that argue for the reduction or complete overthrow of the Second Amendment seem to miss the point when it comes to violence. It is not the tool’s fault when people are harmed by it, those who use it should be held responsible. A gun is just that, a tool, made to do a very specific job. By targeting weapons like pistols, shotguns and rifles we are merely applying a band-aid to a brain injury. If we truly wish to curb random violence then we need to focus on the real issue, the people wielding the swords...or guns. Guns remain a target because it seems like a quick and easy fix as compared to totally revamping our prison system, or actually dealing with our woeful mental health institutions. Those kinds of changes require the public to ask some very difficult questions and make hard choices. Frankly the American public doesn’t have the will to deal with these issues. Guns have become a scapegoat that will bear the sins of the nation when so much more effort could be put into treating what is really troubling this society.

Many have argued that this is a right that belongs in a bygone era and the time has come to replace it or be rid of it. Now it’s obvious that you only hear the word militia today in history books or from your crazed uncle who is gathering the “militia” because Obama has come with the sole purpose of taking away his precious stash of 44. Magnums. The Second Amendment reads much like the Third. We have never had to worry about the government quartering troops in our homes during peacetime, yet it was a real practice by the British when the colonies decided to make their break for independence. Now I doubt those who added this Amendment would look kindly on the inordinate amount of time we have debated what exactly is indicated by the word “militia.” During the early days of the United States there had no standing army (Another thing the colonists feared) and this was the only way troops were organized were these local arimes. Simply because the amendment states that bearing arms ties in with well organized militia, does not mean that is the only instance where one may own a firearm. Living on the frontier of the colonies was perilous at times and it was necessary to hunt for a variety of reasons. Yet these men and women were not forced to form a militia for the right to keep and bear arms. If anything needs to be changed about the Second Amendment, it’s that the militia line needs to be revised before the courts waste more time debating it.

Now ironically, one of the biggest special interest groups in the country is devoted to upholding the Second Amendment and has so far gone unmentioned in this article, for good reason. The National Rifle Association (NRA) spends ludicrous amounts of money lobbying for legislation benefiting gun owners. Yet if one looks at their rhetoric and past actions, they seem to be some of the biggest fearmongers since Fox News. Ever since President Obama was elected the NRA has fed its members a constant stream of conservative rhetoric that borders on the comical. One might believe that Obama’s presidency is far worse that the British actions at Lexington and Concord. Moderate and liberal gun owners may well fear being associated with this organization because of its view of the President and their rhetoric following the tragedy at Sandy Hook Elementary. They pander to the ultra reactionary base and never falter when it comes to accusing this administration of near treason. The NRA is alienating people who share their goals yet have a realistic outlook on life. However money talks and it seems like those who prefer a rational approach to gun politics are in the minority.

It’s necessary to remember in the midst of inflamed emotions, harsh rhetoric and the bitter divide between the opposing sides of this debate is that we all have fundamental rights that not many other people around the world have. We have the right to speak out against what we think is wrong, I may worship whom I like or not worship at all, we can assemble peacefully without fear of reprisal. The Second Amendment is an American citizens last option when all other rights are being infringed upon or violated. Those who wrote up the Bill of Rights remembered well the British Crown’s attempt to silence the colonists in the best way they knew how; to prevent them from being able to defend themselves against British regulars. For better or worse that is the legacy of this country, to passionately resist a government’s attempt at perceived tyranny. We should be defending this essential right that few around the world posses rather than attacking it. If we repeal or alter the Second Amendment, we as citizens will literally be shooting ourselves in the foot.