I wanted to take a step of the beaten path and ask a question about personal rights.
Before I post any personal opinions I wanted to see what you all think.
I'd like to know what everyone thinks about the second amendment?
Here it is in it's original language:
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.
Also, aside from what this law may or may not say, I want to know what you all think about personally owning and carrying a handgun?
Look forward to hearing from all of you!
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
6 comments:
I'll tell you what I think soon, I need more time to think, but I will try to organize an interesting guest post...
It seems that people who want to deny people the right to own a handgun are under the impression that if people did not have handguns, there would be fewer murders. I disagree with this; I think that there would be more deaths by knives or by illegally bought firearms. I think if someone wants to kill someone, they will find a way, gun or not. I think of the shirt on the big dude in Happy Gilmore that said, "Guns don't kill people; I kill people."
Therefore, I think guns are an indirect cause of murder; and I do not disagree with people owning them. They should probably be locked up and stored unloaded.
I personally don't foresee ever owning one. I do think that there are too many accidental deaths by kids playing around with one that is found, or a gun that was supposedly empty going off and killing someone. Plus, most people have it as a security blanket, and I don't want to put my faith in that.
Kurtz,
I have to disagree with the idea that less guns will not lead to less murders. Certainly, people kill people. Still, I think that less people would be killed if knives were our typical weapon and not guns. There is a personal nature and closeness required to hurt someone with a knife that is far riskier than shooting someone. Similarly, violent crime rates seem to be lower in countries where less guns are present among the civilian population. Again, guns don't kill people, but if we only had our fists, statistically speaking, less people would be getting killed.
I am not saying I want to deny everyone the right to own a gun, but I don't see a lot of good reasons or constitutional justification for having one.
My dad, who has a B.S. and a J.D. from UCLA, has agreed to write a guest post for us, it will be coming in a day or two!
I'll throw in my two cents in a couple of days...after finals...maybe after I take Constitutional law next semester. Just kidding, my take on this is forthcoming.
Ok, finally, here are some thoughts on the second amendment and owning and carrying a handgun.
First, it is not clear that the second amendment grants a Constitutional right for the private ownership of firearms. It has long been argued, and held by the Supreme Court, that the first clauses of the amendment do not limit the application of the later clause resulting in a broad interpretation and the granting of a right to own and carry a personal gun. There is some support for this position. There are rules of statutory interpretation that may allow a court to reach this conclusion, and there is a historical argument that, in context, the drafters intended the amendment to grant a broad right. However, a broad interpretation of the language of the amendment seems to buck against the normal use of the english language. Usually the first clauses in a sentence somehow modify or affect those clauses following them. In this case "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State..." seems like it should modify the later clauses supposedly granting a right to keep and bear arms. If the preceding clauses do not modify the latter clause, this is an unusual way to interpret the english language, and it seems to be inconsistent with the way the rest of the Constitution and other statutes are interpreted. However, whether right or wrong, the Supreme Court is the final word on the meaning of the Constitution, and, as of now, they say that the amendment grants a right to private ownership of guns independent of a State sponsored military body necessary for State security.
Enough of that, what do I think about owning and carrying a handgun? I think that we must start thinking about this question in terms of purposes. What is the purpose of owning a handgun? What would be the purpose of revoking the current right to do so?
I have absolutely no research to back this up, but as far as I can tell it seems that the primary justification for owning and or carrying a handgun is personal protection. Sure, some handgun owners own guns for recreational shooting, but the majority of handguns are most likely owned for purposes of protection. This raises a number of interesting questions that I won't pretend to be able to answer, but I give you my thoughts.
In the United States, presently, is there a threat to personal safety that justifies the ownership and or carrying of a weapon that may, and probably will if used, result in the death of another? I can think of very few places in this country where public security is so deficient that it becomes necessary for a private individual to provide for their own security by means of a handgun. In many other countries around the world threats to personal security and safety are much more real and imminent in everyday life. In these countries, by this criteria, the ownership and bearing of a handgun may be legitimate. However, in this country, at this time, it seems that the legitimacy of such a need cannot be defended.
Assuming that the primary purpose of the gun is for safety, are there feasible alternatives that provide an appropriate measure of safety to those who desire it? I think there are. The individual fearful of personal attack may carry mace, the homeowner fearful of burglary may instal a security system and high quality locks, and all personal property is insurable making the defense of it by deadly force unnecessary. I won't get into it here, but I think many of these are not only viable from a security standpoint, but also provide an economic advantage over a handgun.
Why does America think that there is a right to own a handgun that may not be infringed upon? This question could go back to the interpretation of the Constitutional language. However, I believe that there is much more to it. While the Constitution does grant a number of individual rights, America is ,and always has been obsessed with the rights for the individual over the good of society. Thus, the thinking is that if I, as an individual, have a right to own a gun and carry it, it does not matter that society as a whole will be or may be benefited by the abolition of such a right because I, the individual, am superior to the community and my personal autonomy may not be infringed upon. The United State has fostered individualism to the point where not only does the individual miss the benefits of living in a community, but the community is harmed by the individual's self-interested actions.
Furthermore, as followers of Christ, is it Biblical to own a handgun for the purposes of personal protection? I'm not sure. Without a doubt, especially as a husband, I have a responsibility to protect my family and I do not have to stand by in the name of following Christ while an intruder to my home harms them. However, understanding that I, as a believer, have a personal relationship with Christ and thus have, or should have, no fear of death, and assuming that an intruder does not have this relationship with Christ, is it right for me to use deadly force in the form of a handgun for protection knowing that this action, if successful, will result in the intruder's eternal separation from God? Where is the line between appropriate force for protection and inappropriate force? As is usual, I don't think there is a bright line rule, but can generalizations be made?
What about the common argument that guns don't kill people, people kill people? I don't think this one carries a whole lot of weight. Although it is true that the gun cannot kill without the personal agent behind it, the gun makes the killing of others more efficient, more impersonal, and just plain easier. If handguns could be adequately regulated, I truly believe that killings would decrease.
So, long story short, I don't really see many defensible justifications for owning or carrying a handgun. It's not justified by the risk, there are other good options, the perceived right may be based on an errant assumption of individual superiority, I'm not sure what the Bible says about it, and I think less handguns would mean less killings.
Well, I've rambled on for long enough. There are other issues to raise, but I'm interested in your thoughts.
Post a Comment