2008 Woodie Awards
Baring Arms Isn't Right
Steven Mrozik
Issue date: 10/6/08 Section: Opinion
The founding fathers bestowed many unalienable rights. They are most commonly known as part of the "Bill of Rights." One of these unalienable rights is the second amendment of the U.S. Constitution -- the right to bare arms.
The right to bare arms means the right to own a weapon, which is generally assumed to be firearms. A gun can be a tool of death and destruction in the hands of the wrong person, and a lifesaver in the hands of the right person. While the line between the wrong and right is often gray, we can still agree that many people who own firearms have no need for them.
The founders of our nation lived during a completely different time and had lived in a different culture in different circumstances than we do today. Guns were a huge part of their lives. They carried rifles to hunt their food and to protect them from wild animals that could attack them. They defended themselves from native inhabitants of the Americas.
The times they lived in were treacherous, you fended for yourself in the wilderness. There weren't cities and developed areas everywhere; it was forests and plains. The need for weapons was obvious and it was that need that directly influenced the second amendment.
What we must realize now is that the writers of the Constitution also wrote it in such a way to prevent the abuse of the rights given to us.
The Constitution states that a "a well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bare Arms, shall not be infringed." This same rule doesn't apply to every person as many claim it to be. According to the Constitution, guns are to be used to protect the citizens from danger, and that the people in charge of protecting us oversee the "militia" and make sure no one is infringing on others' rights by misusing the weapons they were given.
These firearms can be found across America in thousands of homes, many of whom have little or no proper training with them. If the use of firearms was limited to police officers and military servicemen, we could prevent thousands of gun-related crimes every year and create a safer and more peaceful society. With reduced crime would also come less of a need for firearms as a means of protection. The people who acquire guns to steal and kill wouldn't have them to commit such heinous acts in the first place.
This amendment should be more stringently interpreted to the means in which the founding fathers intended it to be. Many people and groups, such as the National Rifle Association, promote the use and ownership of firearms for protection and claim it is our Constitutional right. I say that once the option of using firearms is eliminated, we are ensured the right our forefathers gave us: protection.
The right to bare arms means the right to own a weapon, which is generally assumed to be firearms. A gun can be a tool of death and destruction in the hands of the wrong person, and a lifesaver in the hands of the right person. While the line between the wrong and right is often gray, we can still agree that many people who own firearms have no need for them.
The founders of our nation lived during a completely different time and had lived in a different culture in different circumstances than we do today. Guns were a huge part of their lives. They carried rifles to hunt their food and to protect them from wild animals that could attack them. They defended themselves from native inhabitants of the Americas.
The times they lived in were treacherous, you fended for yourself in the wilderness. There weren't cities and developed areas everywhere; it was forests and plains. The need for weapons was obvious and it was that need that directly influenced the second amendment.
What we must realize now is that the writers of the Constitution also wrote it in such a way to prevent the abuse of the rights given to us.
The Constitution states that a "a well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bare Arms, shall not be infringed." This same rule doesn't apply to every person as many claim it to be. According to the Constitution, guns are to be used to protect the citizens from danger, and that the people in charge of protecting us oversee the "militia" and make sure no one is infringing on others' rights by misusing the weapons they were given.
These firearms can be found across America in thousands of homes, many of whom have little or no proper training with them. If the use of firearms was limited to police officers and military servicemen, we could prevent thousands of gun-related crimes every year and create a safer and more peaceful society. With reduced crime would also come less of a need for firearms as a means of protection. The people who acquire guns to steal and kill wouldn't have them to commit such heinous acts in the first place.
This amendment should be more stringently interpreted to the means in which the founding fathers intended it to be. Many people and groups, such as the National Rifle Association, promote the use and ownership of firearms for protection and claim it is our Constitutional right. I say that once the option of using firearms is eliminated, we are ensured the right our forefathers gave us: protection.
Viewing Comments 1 - 10 of 37
Carl in Chicago
posted 10/06/08 @ 2:30 PM EST
"If the use of firearms was limited to police officers and military servicemen, we could prevent thousands of gun-related crimes every year and create a safer and more peaceful society. (Continued…)
Carl in Chicago
posted 10/06/08 @ 3:06 PM EST
I already posted on this story ... it was a reasonable post, related to the content, and was not spam.
However, now my comment is gone. I am disappointed in The Statesman. (Continued…)
Tom
posted 10/06/08 @ 8:15 PM EST
The author of this opinion is obviously uneducated as to the reasons the founding fathers included the second ammendment, and should read the federalist papers where our founding fathers expressed the exact reasoning behind the right to bear arms, including the right to revolution should it become necessary. (Continued…)
C. A. Clark
posted 10/06/08 @ 11:39 PM EST
While I agree with the general observations of this item, there is one point which must be corrected. The founders did not grant any rights, they recognized that they existed. (Continued…)
Joe
posted 10/07/08 @ 12:17 AM EST
Interesting article, that brings up a lot of questions. Let's be realistic here though. There's no way this country will ever outlaw private gun ownership nor can we allow the free reign of madmen with untracked assault weapons and bazookas. (Continued…)
Chuy Aceves
posted 10/07/08 @ 2:28 AM EST
What crap! Glad the Supreme Court doesn't think like you.
Warsong
posted 10/07/08 @ 6:16 AM EST
From the Heart of Baghdad,
It would appear that the author of this piece needs a little more time to grow up.
The 20th Century was the most perilous era in the history of the world, and, the 21st is shaping up to be more of the same, but, more so. (Continued…)
fsilber
posted 10/07/08 @ 7:22 AM EST
"The times (the Founders) lived in were treacherous, you fended for yourself in the wilderness."
It is little different today in the inner-city. Anyone who is a potential mugging victim has a legitimate need for a handgun. (Continued…)
Norm in Atlanta
posted 10/07/08 @ 8:15 AM EST
Honestly, how can someone who does not understand the difference between bear and bare, be taken seriously?
Jordan
posted 10/07/08 @ 8:17 AM EST
"Shall not be infringed." If you interpret that more stringently, you get...well, shall not be infringed. I think the founding fathers were quite clear on that point. (Continued…)
Post a Comment