Running head: GUN CONTROL: THE RIGHT TO BEAR ARMS

Gun Control: The Right to Bear Arms Jon Chao EN 200A Paige Talbot Warner Pacific College June 18, 2012

GUN CONTROL: THE RIGHT TO BEAR ARMS

Gun Control: The Right to Bear Arms There are few topics of debate in America that divide our nation more than gun control does. While the Second Amendment states that Americans have the right bear arms, many believe that the Second Amendment is misinterpreted and the true meaning of the second amendment is lost in translation. Factually speaking, the rate of gun related violence in the United States is considered very high in comparison with other nations throughout the world. In fact, numerous sources, including the Centers for Disease Control (CDC), list the United States as having the highest rate of firearm violence amongst industrialized nations (Guns and Violence, 2010). This fact certainly gives proponents of gun control a very strong argument when it comes to implementing gun control measures and regulations. In all honesty, Im not too fond of guns but it is my belief that in America the right to bear arms is has been guaranteed to generations before us and should be guaranteed for all generations to come in the United States. Many Americans own guns as a means for hunting and sportsman activities, while others may choose to own weapons for security and self-defense. It is also true that guns are used to perpetrate crimes and when they fall in the wrong hands they can have a very adverse effect on society. However, the problem in question is the people that choose to use guns to commit violent crimes rather than guns themselves; after all, guns are merely an object and are normally not used for destruction unless someone intends to use them for a destructive purpose. If guns were to be outlawed or regulated under extreme measures, criminals would not have a moral reasoning that swayed them from using a gun. The people that would suffer would be the law-abiding citizens that follow societys

GUN CONTROL: THE RIGHT TO BEAR ARMS

rules. In essence, it is not fair that law-abiding citizens should have to suffer on behalf of the negative actions of a group of a select few criminals. Throughout the course of this essay I will examine both sides of this hotly contested debate and elaborate on why I ultimately believe that U.S Citizens should maintain the right to bear arms as generations before us. The concept of gun ownership is deeply entrenched in American culture and it is true that the gun has gun played a major role in the development of America. Early pioneers used guns for self-defense in the dangerous wildernesses of America and to kill wild game for sustenance. Guns were also used to aid in the destruction of Native American culture as well as to defend our nation against foreign aggression in instances such as the Revolutionary War. Given this information, it is hard to deny that guns have played a major role in the history and development of America and as alluded to in the aforementioned sentence, they have had both positive and negative implications in our nations history. Whatever the case may be, the right to bear arms has been guaranteed since the birth of the constitution, or has it? Like many other important documents and laws, the Constitution is subject to interpretation and accordingly, up for debate. Just as one group of Christians are certain to interpret the Bible differently or different ethnic groups of Muslims have different interpretations of the Quran, many Americans have different interpretations of the Constitution, especially the Second Amendment. Many people in America interpret the second amendment as guaranteeing their right to bear arms. The following author points this out in this excerpt from his publication on gun control that our founding fathers felt it necessary to add the right to bear arms to the Constitution Accordingly, when adding the

GUN CONTROL: THE RIGHT TO BEAR ARMS Bill of Rights to the Constitution, the founders included the Second Amendment, which

read, A well-regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed (Guns and Violence, 2010). It certainly seems like the Second Amendment clearly guarantees our right to bear arms but when one more carefully analyzes the Second Amendment there is an argument to be made about the circumstances in which American citizens have the right to bear arms. The Second Amendment follows up the right to bear arms with verbiage about a wellregulated militia being necessary. This is where there is a grey area in the second amendment as one could pose an argument that most people that own guns are not gun owners on the premise of belonging to a militia. To further compound the complexity of the issue is the fact that nowhere in the Constitution does it describe what a wellregulated militia is. The Second Amendment was adopted to protect the right of the people of each of the several States to maintain a well-regulated militia. It was a response to concerns raised during the ratification of the Constitution that the power of Congress to disarm the state militias and create a national standing army posed an intolerable threat to the sovereignty of the several States. Neither the text of the Amendment nor the arguments advanced by its proponents evidenced the slightest interest in limiting any legislature's authority to regulate private civilian uses of firearms. Specifically, there is no indication that the Framers of the Amendment intended to enshrine the common-law right of selfdefense in the Constitution (Stevens, 2005). The author of this passage certainly brings forth a very strong argument as to why the second amendment does not unequivocally guarantee the right to bear arms to private civilians. While the author may have made a

GUN CONTROL: THE RIGHT TO BEAR ARMS very solid argument, he fails to mention that there is nothing in the Second Amendment that states the right to bear arms only pertains to being in a well regulates militia. The Second Amendment may very well be saying that it is the right of Americans to bear arms and also maintain a well-regulated militia. Again, an argument can be made both ways but I am not willing to revoke the rights of Americans to bear arms under the

premise that the Second Amendment might indicate that only a well-regulated militia has the right to bear arms. I, for one, believe that when the laws or rights within the Bill of Rights are the subjects of debate it is best to interpret the law in manner that is most conducive to the freedom of U.S. Citizens. I believe my argument to be true because the basic premise of everything America is about is based on individual freedom. There is no denying that America is very different place today than it was in 1787 when the Constitution was written. Our forefathers probably did not have the foresight to envision America as it is today. They probably did not take into account that many cities in America would plague with gang violence and chaos or that America would have a nationwide drug epidemic. It is also safe to say that perhaps they did understand the technological advances that would occur in the firearms industry. Given these facts, they may have added more clarity to the Second Amendment as the aforementioned factors have caused the gun to become synonymous with crime and violence; then again, they might not have changed anything about the Second Amendment; there is no way well ever have an answer to this question. America is a nation with millions and millions of guns in the hands of millions and millions of people and if gun control laws change in the favor of gun control proponents and guns become illegal for most people to own, those millions of guns in America arent just going to disappear. In reality, criminals in

GUN CONTROL: THE RIGHT TO BEAR ARMS America are always going to have access to guns and seeing as criminals are willing to break other established laws they would certainly have no problem breaking laws that pertain to gun control. The problem in America is not guns, the problem is the violent culture in America and eliminating guns is not going to change the violent nature of criminals in America. To even begin to discuss why America has such a violent culture and why the social problems we have exist would be the subject of an entirely different paper. I am not going to attempt to discuss why America has the social problems it has in this essay but I do not think taking guns out of the hands of law abiding citizens is the answer. Author Stephan E. Wright published a paper titled Gun Control Laws Will Not Save

Lives, and in his publication, I believe he very much echoes my sentiments in the fact that it is our violent culture that is to blame for the violence that occurs in America, not guns. My thoughts on this matter are supported by the following America has a problem with violence culture, not a gun culture. Guns are used by violent people too frequently in this country, but guns are not responsible for creating violent people, they created themselves. We have real issues in this country, but they are social issues and are reasons to promote, not restrict, civilian gun ownership until we find a social solution that works (Wright, 2012). While many violent acts are committed at the hands of criminals with weapons it is also a disturbing reality that many children in our country are senselessly killed by firearms every year in America. The following statistics are a harsh reminder of the unfortunate deaths of American youth because of gun related accidents. The number of children and teens killed by guns in 2007 would fill more than 122 public school

GUN CONTROL: THE RIGHT TO BEAR ARMS classrooms of 25 students each. The number of preschoolers killed by firearms in 2007 (85) surpassed the number of law enforcement officers killed in the line of duty (57) (Childrens Defense Fund, 2012). Most of these senseless deaths could have been prevented if the adults in the lives of these children acted responsibly. Guns were most definitely the instruments that inflicted these unnecessary deaths but they are not necessarily reason for the deaths. The reason in many cases is because of the irresponsible adults in the lives of children who fail to properly place the weapons out of reach of the children or put safety measures such as trigger locks in place. In some cases

the parents should be held accountable for the fact that their children are involved in gang activities, which may lead to the death of their children at the hands of a firearm. Whatever the reason may be for the death of children related to firearms, the fact of the matter is that the number of children who die as a result of guns could be significantly reduced if the adults in the childrens lives acted with more responsibility and taught their children that it is essential treat weapons in a safe manner, which in most cases means leaving them alone not touching them at all. In this essay Ive given the pros and cons of gun ownership in the United States and given equal perspectives from both sides of the gun control argument based on opposing views of the Second Amendment. In the end, it is my interpretation of the Second Amendment that supports my decision as to why Americans ultimately have the right bear arms and no one should be able to take that right away. The context of individual rights is what I value most about living in the United States. As individual rights pertain to the Second Amendment, I believe the upcoming passage describes my thoughts on the issue perfectly The amendment uses the phrase 'right of the people,'

GUN CONTROL: THE RIGHT TO BEAR ARMS

which everywhere else in the Constitution denotes individual rights; the amendment does not use words like 'powers' or 'authority,' which is how government powers are described everywhere else throughout the Constitution (Kates, 2010). The right to bear arms bares a heavy burden on American society and has some unfortunate ramifications but the freedom of an individual to own a gun is the signature of a free nation and that is why I support the right to bear arms and believe that the Second Amendment gives us that right. I can only hope that America becomes more responsible when it comes to gun safety and we implement measures to reduce the violent culture in our country but I dont think these factors should infringe on our personal freedom, which I have concluded is our birthright based on the Second Amendment.

GUN CONTROL: THE RIGHT TO BEAR ARMS

References Children's Defense Fund. "Gun Crimes Cause Serious Harm to Children." Guns and Crime. Ed. Christine Watkins. Detroit: Greenhaven Press, 2012. At Issue. Rpt. from "Protect Children, Not Guns 2010." 20 Aug. 2010: 1-18. Gale Opposing Viewpoints In Context. Web. 8 June 2012. Guns and Violence. Current Issues: Macmillan social Science Library. Detroit: Gale, 2010. Gale Opposing Viewpoints In context. Web. 31 May 2012. Kates, Don B. "The Second Amendment Guarantees the Right to Private Gun Ownership." Gun Violence. Ed. Louise Gerdes. Detroit: Greenhaven Press, 2011. Opposing Viewpoints. Rpt. from "Who's on Second? In a Speech at UCLA, the Author Laws Down the Law." Handguns (Aug.-Sept. 2009): 16-18. Gale Opposing Viewpoints In Context. Web. 8 June 2012 Stevens, John Paul. "The Right to Own a Gun Is Not Guaranteed by the Constitution." Is Gun Ownership a Right? Ed. Kelly Doyle. San Diego: Greenhaven Press, 2005. At Issue. Rpt. from "Dissenting Opinion, in Supreme Court of the United States, District of Columbia ET AL. v. Heller." 2008. 1-46. Gale Opposing Viewpoints In Context. Web. 8 June 2012. Wright, Stephen E. "Gun Control Laws Will Not Save Lives." Guns and Crime. Ed. Christine Watkins. Detroit: Greenhaven Press, 2012. At Issue. Rpt. from "Anti-Gun Group Common Sense Gun Laws and Real Common Sense." StephenEWright.com. 2010. Gale Opposing Viewpoints In Context. Web. 8 June 2012.

GUN CONTROL: THE RIGHT TO BEAR ARMS

10