Well, I promised an epic, and I kept putting it off, but here I go…
I’m going to argue this from three standpoints. The State, and the individual and crime.
As Chimi stated earlier, the 2nd Amendment goes…
QUOTE
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.
This is the disputed passage in question. Some argue that it means that the State has the right to an armed militia, some argue that it means that the individual has the right to bear arms. The wording is a bit ambiguous, after all. If, by “the people”, do they mean the militia of the State, or is the militia itself composed of “the people” that have that right to bear arms.
In reality, I am quite sure that they meant both. That not only was it the right of a State to have a militia freely bear arms, but also, the right of the individual to do so as well so that in time of crisis, they could be organized to form a militia.
Case in point, though, the State. Is this 2nd Amendment truly being held to? While each State does have its own Guard, the National Guard is trained, regulated and mostly equipped by the federal government. The President can, at any time, nationalize the Guard, and the State then no longer has control over the Guard. This has actually happened more than once – take, for example, in Arkansas, when that high school was forcibly integrated. The governor of Arkansas called in the Guard to prevent it, but the President nationalized the Guard and they were called off. Now, I am not saying that it was
right for the governor to use the Guard in that matter, but, it goes to show how much a State’s militia really is not it’s own militia. It hardly ever own the weapons they use, either. The Guard is controlled by the federal government, not the State.
And you may ask, what the hell does this have to do with gun control. If, for example, a State did not wish to have a nationalized militia – perhaps it is a time of crisis and the State wishes to protect itself without having its troops called away by the President – perhaps the State feels that the federal government is corrupt in such a way that it wishes to have its own militia to protect itself from federal forces. Who knows, but it is the right of the State to do so. If the second Amendment was nullified with another Amendment, one that did not guarantee a State’s right to have its people keep and bear arms, then a State could theoretically be left defenseless in an attack, either from foreign powers or even a civil war, or a social disruption or a terrorist attack.
You say, of course a State can keep a militia, I’m not against that. But if the State doesn’t even own the majority of the weapons that its own Guard uses, how is it going to supply its populace in a time of crisis? Short answer, it won’t be able to, especially if gun use is all but banned. Remember your economy class – supply and demand. If there is no demand for weapons, there won’t be vendors, and if you don’t have vendors, you don’t have weapons. By giving the individual the right to keep arms, you can ensure that if crisis were to strike, a militia would be able to FORM and protect the peoples of a State. The State would also have an easier time supplying weapons as need be. The people, using their own weapons, which they know how to operate, can more likely defend their home and their State than if they were just handed a weapon they had never even seen before.
You say, that’s not going to happen. We’re across the ocean from anything that would harm us, and it’s not like Canada or Mexico is up to something.
Yes, of course, nothing is wrong *now* - but in the future? A hundred years from now? Can you be so certain that we would not have a threat on our border, or even furthermore, a threat within our country, from terrorists or even civil war? The Constitution is not something to be changed often. It has lasted for two hundred and sixteen years now in its current form – not very many governments today can say that they have had a constitution last such a long time. The Amendment process is slow, and it is hard to change the Constitution for a reason – when you change it, the States must be CERTAIN that it will not only benefit them, but also benefit a future nation. The country cannot foresee everything, granted, but by taking away an individual’s right to bear arms, and the ability for a last ditch defense is completely removed, the consequences could be dire for America in the future.
You say, well, if it’s a problem then they can change it. Once changed, it is often VERY hard to get something changed back. And in a time of crisis, if there are no weapons vendors that are easily accessible, how can the changes be made quickly enough to supply those that need weapons? The change won’t come fast enough, and people are left defenseless. The change wouldn’t even be possible if the government itself was corrupted or there was civil war.
That is the viewpoint of a State’s militia and WHY individuals should keep arms – because they could easily form a militia to protect themselves. Do not think that just because it is unlikely in our time does not mean it is unlikely in the future.
For a moment, I’d like to step aside and do a small shout-out to Light, Chimi, Caste and possibly Wynd and Nova. I know that you boys are the only ones who have actually read this far, and for that, I love you. If you’re not one of those five, then I am extremely grateful and love you, too. Please continue.
Now, for the argument for the individual and crime.
This argument is rather well-known. The individual has the right to protect their homes and their persons. “Bear arms” can mean any weapon, not just guns. And I must stress, that though you may be able to come up with scenarios where people would not need to use guns, I can come up with many more in which people would NEED guns. Weapons they knew how to use and had access to.
You think that, by outlawing guns (even just certain types), you will reduce crime. That is, honestly, the most flawed argument there is. Remember, there was crime well before we had guns, there will be crime after. Guns are not the problem, people are, and people are a much harder problem to solve. People will still die, and honestly, in probably more horrific ways than being shot. There will still be murder and theft and rape and assault – guns do not define these crimes, nor do they make these crimes easier. A person can kill as well with a knife, their hands, even with a piece of
string, as they can with a gun, and have been doing so for millennia. Do not think that guns make crimes any easier – banks are still held up with knives, people are still brutally murdered, women are still raped, there are still fights that end with a lot of blood people spilt. Guns do NOT define these crimes, and the lack of legal guns will NOT reduce these crimes.
By outlawing guns, you guarantee only ONE thing. The outlaws will have the guns.
If you think for ONE MOMENT that guns will not be available through illegal, blackmarket sources – heh, dream on. Right now, most criminals that use guns don’t even own them – they have stolen them from somewhere else. Or have purchased them illegally, since background checks are done.
This is, ironically, the same argument that many anti-gun advocates also say reversely about marijuana. Marijuana will always be available, anyway, but by legalizing it, the government can regulate it. This is the same reason why we SHOULD keep gun control the way it is. By regulating it, we can control it better than if it were completely illegal. You have seen, on the news, about how they only found a bullet shell, but with advanced forensic science, was able to track the exact place the criminal bought the gun (or who they stole it from), and from there, find the criminal themselves.
If we take that away by not allowing people to legally own those guns, that way of finding criminals will no longer be available. In fact, they would be almost impossible to find, whereas now, we can normally track such things down.
If people want pot, they can get pot. If people want heroin or LSD or crystal meth, then they can get it. If guns are outlawed from the individual, only the people we don’t want to have guns in the first place will actually have them.
Crime rates do NOT relate to gun control. Vermont has very few gun control laws – they even allow concealed weapons – and they have the lowest crime rates in the country. Texas, also, has a very low crime-rate – people drive down the street with a gun-rack in their truck, what do you think?
Britain, who has STRONG gun control laws, has higher crime rates for major crimes than the US.
Gun control doesn’t take down the SEVERITY of crimes, either. At least with a gun, people can shoot you in a number of places that isn’t life-threatening if you got medical attention soon after, whereas otherwise? A knife can seriously fuck you up. That girl that Light posted about – did they shoot her? No. But she died a horrible death anyway.
This all being said, I don’t think people should be walking down the streets with an AK-47 in their hands, but I completely believe in their right to OWN an AK-47 if they desire.
Guns are even becoming more sophisticated – finger-print or voice command identification to prevent stolen guns from being used in crimes. Gun use should be REGULATED, perhaps with more strict background checks and requirements, yes, but as Americans, we should have the right to keep guns for the protection of our persons, our family, our city, our State and our country.
There. Take as you will.