Even when you have people claiming to be supporters of the Second Amendment, when their mind thinking is the way this one college professor’s is, it helps to explain why Americans’ constitutional right to bear arms is being depleted and crooks rights are being enhanced.
For as long as there have been guns in America, there have been gun regulations. Indeed, in the decades after the adoption of the Second Amendment, gun regulations became more restrictive, not less. The Second Amendment links the right to keep and bear arms with the civic obligation to participate in a well-regulated militia. It has nothing to do with the use of firearms for self-defense, hunting or target shooting. Recognizing that the Second Amendment does not address these issues does not mean that Americans have no right to engage in all of those activities.
The Founding Fathers were not anti-gun, nor opposed to self-defense. But they recognized that these activities had to be balanced against the needs of public safety. In contrast to modern gun rights ideology, the Founding Fathers were pro-gun regulation precisely because they were pro-gun. Until we learn to honor this fact, discussions about reasonable gun regulation will continue to be mired in a false dichotomy: gun rights or gun regulation. We need not make such a choice to honor the Second Amendment.
Put another way, the Second Amendment does not pose a barrier to gun regulation; it compels it.
So, to put it in my terms of understanding, the Second Amendment is only for organized militia, because we have always added regulations and restrictions to our Constitution that is reason enough to keep doing it, our Founding Fathers believed that gun restrictions were necessary and the Second Amendment “compels” gun regulation.
I wonder if this same professor would agree to his own reasoning and apply it to his First Amendment right to write this editorial?
I have discussed Second Amendment issues quite often on this blog and we discuss proposed legislation everyday on how to restrict guns, take them away from lawful citizens and create “safe zones”. Almost never do we sit around discussing what legislation is being proposed to tighten up punishment for people who illegally used guns to commit crimes. We also have a myriad of excuses as to why enforcing the law doesn’t work. Usually that is money so as our society has become adept at doing, we create a “feel good” law convincing ourselves things will be better.
This editorial writer wants to discuss the history of the Second Amendment to prove his theory yet fails to talk about the history of what has happened to violent crime as his history has taken away the rights of Americans to own them and use them. Let me give you two examples that anyone who opens their eyes can see.
The first is crime. Disarming the people emboldens crooks and thieves. Truth is, the more we disarm the more crime goes up. The truth is the less we punish and imprison criminals, the more crime goes up, yet to deal with this we target lawful citizens.
The second obvious historical change is when we look at the power of our government. The more we disarm the American people, government can further impose its control over the people, continuing to strip us of our rights and freedoms. History clearly shows us what has happened around the world when the power is removed from the people.
History is a valuable tool but it’s totally useless if we choose only to utilize that part of history which fits our own beliefs. “Sensible gun regulation” will only lead to a sensible takeover of crooks and that includes government.
Tom Remington
