The right to bear arms

How do you interpret it?

Really, I think there is only one interpretation. Heres an essay I wrote for my 12th grade history teacher:

In 1788 the founding fathers, in the scorching Philadelphia heat, set out to create a basic set of rules that would hold their emerging nation together for hundreds of years. Enlightenment thinkers such as Benjamin Franklin and Thomas Jefferson contributed many ideas, including the separation of church and state, organization of the government into three branches, and a balance of powers. However, the Constitution that they would create was not ratified without controversy. Just as we have a separation between Republicans and Democrats in modern America, the 1700’s saw a division between Federalists and Anti-Federalists. In order to satisfy the Anti-Federalists and make the ratification unanimous, the Bill of Rights was created. This set of unalienable rights would carry the United States into an era of prosperity and wealth that would last for the next two-hundred years.

\tPerhaps the most important Amendment to the Bill of Rights is the second, which reads:

“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.”

Within a period of two centuries (of which this Amendment served the United States valiantly), this right has come under much scrutiny. America has evolved from a small gathering of hunters and farmers thousands of miles away from any civilization into one of the largest and most technologically advanced nations in the world. With this evolution has come a change in the way we interpret our Constitution. In the late eighteenth century, the Constitution was seen as a way for the people to be sheltered from future tyrannical government. Today, it seems, the constitution is viewed merely as a list of laws and regulations for all to abide by. This could not be farther from the truth, as this Second Amendment addresses neither the literal interpretation of the individual’s right to own arms nor the State’s right to a National Guard.

\tThe second amendment is the constitution’s way of protecting its people from the government. Abraham Lincoln’s Gettysburg Address was merely an echo of the ideas set forth in this Amendment, notably when he says that this is a “government of the people by the people and for the people”. The idea behind the Second Amendment is that if a government (such as Great Brittan circa 1770) ever becomes too tyrannical, the people will have a means to retake the liberty that all people deserve. It was Adolph Hitler, the largest perpetrator of genocide in the history of mankind who once said, "the most foolish mistake we could possibly make would be to allow the subject races to possess arms.” Luckily, our founding fathers foresaw the chance of psychotic dictators coming to power when they created the Second Amendment to the Bill of Rights.

\tTo understand what our founding fathers were speaking of when they sat down and wrote the Constitution, you have to understand their world. These men had watched and learned about thousands of years of conflict among peasants and their government. Great Brittan had committed numerous atrocities against the American colonies. The king was oppressing his people; treating them like second-rate citizens by quartering soldiers on their land and in their homes. The Age of Enlightenment brought a new way of viewing the relationship between a person and his government. One of the key beliefs adopted at this time was that if the majority of people did not like how the government was treating them, they had not only the right, but the civic duty to overthrow that government. Even the preamble of the Declaration of Independence talks about this duty.

“…Whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or abolish it, and to institute new Government.”

Ballistic weapons have been, and until we develop lasers based weapons, will remain the most useful tool in overthrowing a dictatorial government. America has been sheltered for so long that we think we no longer need this right. However, as the government violates more and more of our rights, we need guns to secure our freedom in the future.

\tOne could contemplate what would happen if the Second Amendment were ever deemed unconstitutional. The notion that times have changed and the common man has no need for weaponry is absurd. If you take away one Amendment, why stop there? The Fourth Amendment protects the right of unreasonable search and seizure. One could argue that terrorists could be hiding among us and be protected by that very right. Why not get rid of that one, too? Where does it end? The constitution is like a delicate game of Jenga. If you remove one part of it, that means that other parts could be arbitrary, and the entire basis of our great United States will fall like wooden blocks upon a card table.

\tOne of the modern arguments against the Second Amendment is that if guns are readily available, then more murders and accidental deaths will ensue. The most logical assumption to make from that argument is that if you cut off the source (guns), then the problem will be solved. If one explores this hypothetical situation, one would see the fallacy in such an assumption. If guns were made completely illegal, such as in England, criminals would not all of a sudden have a change in heart and decide to volunteer at their local nursing home. Criminals will commit crimes no matter what they have as a weapon. They are criminals! In England, because handguns were made illegal, the number of violent stabbings skyrocketed. People could not easily get guns, so they turned to knives instead. Furthermore, just because the guns are hard to get does not mean it will deter criminals. A crook could simply steal a gun from a law-abiding citizen, or he could go to the black market like they have been doing for years. I know it has become very cliché, but guns don’t kill people. Criminals do.

\tOne possible solution to the gun problem is education. One reason why gun accidents seem to be increasing among children is because of the lack of training. In previous centuries where the gun was a more prominent figure in society, children were exposed to guns at a very early age. It was not uncommon for a father to bring his son along on a hunt to teach him how to fire a rifle. In modern times, our children learn from guns in the games they play. They get shot in SOCOM: US Navy SEALs and they press the ‘x’ button to respawn and play again. They don’t understand that being shot is extremely painful, and most often fatal. Having a police officer come to the school one day out of the entire year isn’t enough to satisfy the need for knowledge, either. Most of the time they just talk about the dangers of guns. Talk is cheap. I guarantee if you give a child a 30 minute introductory course on properly handling a rifle, then send them out into a supervised gun range every other week, the risk of them finding a gun at a friends house and shooting themselves or others will dramatically be reduced. This is just the way a child’s mind works, and society needs to accept that. If you tell them ‘guns are bad’ for their entire life, when they find a gun behind a trashcan in a park they are going to be curious. Even if told to go right to an adult, most kids know nothing about safe handling, having never even seen a real gun before. Fear and knowledge are much related. If you remove the shroud of fear and replace it with at least rudimentary knowledge, only good things will take place.

\tThose who argue that we don’t need to overthrow governments any longer have probably never peered into a history book. There were more Coup d’états in the 20th century then in any other period of time. Almost every dictatorial government that was overthrown was done so by the cold barrel of a gun. How does this pertain to modern America? It really doesn’t. But it could. There is no way to tell for sure what is going to happen in the next 50 or 100 years, especially with the uncertainty of today’s political blitzkrieg. If the need ever arose, I would rather have a loaded rifle in my hands then sit wishing I had one. It is not a friendly suggestion that Americans should fight for their liberty should it ever become infringed upon. It is their duty. Edmund Burke said it best when he said “The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing.”

 

well, I'll cut to the chase. Check the edit.

 

Well, if you read the giant block of text I edited just a minute ago...

My feeling is that its a way for the people to stay on equal terms with their government. If the people do not like their government, they can shoot it away. It works.

If we had no access to guns, how could we revolt? And trust me, while a revolt today isn't needed, it may. And when that day DOES come (I think it will), and nobody has guns because the democrats pushed for mroe gun control, your going to be begging to borrow my .45's.

 

Lets face it: regardless of wether guns are legal or illegal according to legislation and laws, if a criminal is going to use a gun to commit an illegal act, he is not going to stop because he can't get a gun. He is a criminal! He's going to go to the black market where anybody can buy guns.

There was a virginia tech style shooting that happened a few years back. But it was stopped. You know why? Two students went to their cars, pulled out their pistols, and shot the motherfucker.

I think education is key.

How many of these people making these laws have never picked up a gun in their life?

 

Holocaust estimates vary, but are at about 6 million for most scholars.

The lowest estimate for Stalin is 3 million and the highest is 110 million.

Soviet Archives that were released to the public after the fall of the union disclose that there were 800,000 prisoners executed, and another 400,000 during forced resettlement.

There were a lot of other major bad policies that contributed to deaths, but my point stands that the numbers aren't agreed on.

Hitler rounded up jews, and killed them. 6 million of them.

Stalins 'genocide' is not a genocide by definition because these people came from all different races and ethnicities.

Saddam didn't kill nearly that much. As direct executions, I would say no more then 1 million. He was only convicted of killing about 250.

When playing number games, you have to find where to draw the line to stop counting. As far as I'm concerned, Hitler started WW2 so he is responsible for ALL the deaths during WW2, on all sides of the war.