Gun Control
Essay Preview: Gun Control
Report this essay
Gun Control
Introduction
Everytime you read the newspaper or turn on the TV to watch the news, you hear about gun related violence. Not only war, suicide and gang related shooting, but also six-year old boys killing their classmates in school.
On Tuesday, February 29, 2000 a six-year old boy shot his classmate, of the same age, to death. The two children had gotten into a fight the previous day. The boy had brought a gun from home to frighten her, but accidentely fired it. One single shot was fired inside the classroom at Buell Elementary School, in Mount Morris Township, Michigan, that morning.
Since 1996, there have been 30 major school shootings around the world, 20 of which occurred in the U.S. Most recently, on November 9 this year, a 15 year old shot and killed an assistant principal and seriously wounded two other administrators at Campbell County High School, Jacksboro, Tenneesse, (infoplease.com).
Although violent crimes have declined heavily during the last decade, 1,272,374 cases of murder, robbery, and aggrevated assaults involving firearms were committed
last year. Out of these, 16,137 were murder (The U.S. Department of Justice). In 2000, the U.S. had the highest firearm murder rate per capita of all developed countries in the world (Nation Master). These numbers are terrifying and indeed alarming.
Gun control is truly an important issue, but it is also extremely complex and controversial. Who shall we blame for the steadily increasing rate of gun violence, and what shall we do in order to get the issue under control? Is it Marilyn Mansons music or Charlton Hestons fault, or can it ever be that simple to pinpoint a huge societal issue like this?
The Second Amendment
The Second Amendment of the Bill of Rights in the United States Constitution says: “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.”
A lot of conflicts have risen under this constitutional right since it can be interpreted in two very different ways. The groups and organizations that are advocates of strict gun control laws believe that The Second Amendment were created strictly to guarantee the states, not individuals, the right to possess firearms. They consider this yet another part of the checks and balances – a right for the states to protect themselves against the Federal Government if it should try to exercise
too much power.
They also claim that the words “a well regulated militia” aims at the state troops each state enforced at the time the Constitution was instituted. Todays equivalence, the National Guard, does no longer supply itself with weapons, but get its guns subsidized by the Government. Therefore, the anti-gun groups claim that the Second Amendment, in reality, does not fill any purpose except for its historical importance nowadays (The Brady Campaign).
This standpoint has a major strength seen from a constitutional aspect. The Supreme Court has never really taken a stand about how the Second Amendment shall be interpreted, but in the United States vs. Miller case from 1939, the Supreme Court appointed that the possession of a short-barelled shotgun was not protected by the rights from the Second Amendment, since they did not consider it to be \\\”ordinary military equipment\\\” that could \\\”contribute to the common defense.\\\” Never since has any gun control law been considered unconstitutional by the Supreme Court (Volokh).
The other side of the debate, the adherents of less or none gun control, strictly claim that the Second Amendment was created mainly to give individuals the right to keep and bear firearms for the purpose of protecting themselves. They do not oppose that the states also are given the privilege to possess firearms, but claim, as mentioned before, that the right of the individuals is its main purpose. The “well regulated militia” has been interpreted as an armed population, whos purpose is to protect the country against a potential tyrannical government or dictatorship (NRA).
An important argument the pro-gun organizations frequently uses to emphazise the, according to them, obvious individual intent of the Second Amendment are statements from the Founding Fathers. The National Rifle Association published a fact sheet on their webpage earlier this year containing a quote from James Madison, one of the Founding Fathers: \\\”the advantage of being armed,\\\” that was lacking in other nations, where \\\”the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms.\\\” Further on, they continue by quoting Patrick Henry, another important man behind the revolution: \\\”great object is that every man be armed. . . . Everyone who is able may have a gun.\\\”
According to the pro-gun group, the phrase “the right of the people”, is obvious proof of that the Founding Fathers meant the Second Amendment to apply to individuals. In addition, all of the other Amendments in the Bill of Rights are focused on the individuals rights, so why would the Second Amendment differ?
The pro-gun groups have some authoritarian support too. In 2004, The U.S. Department of Justice published a report addressing
the Second Amendment. The report is based on, as they express themselves: “the Amendments text, as commonly understood at the time of its adoption and interpreted in light of other provisions of the Constitution and the Amendments historical antecedents”. Their conclusion reads: “we conclude that the Second Amendment secures a personal right of individuals, not a collective right that may only be invoked by a State or a quasi-collective right restricted to those persons who serve in organized militia units”. The Department of Justice also agrees with the pro-gun Americans about the definition of the term “a well regulated militia”. According to the report, one have to consider the prevailing language for the time the Constitution was written when interpeting it. This is the reason why the Second Amendment has been interpreted incorrectly by for example the anti-gun groups.
Although it has been frequently debated, the word militia, interpreted under todays language circumstances, is always subject to federal, state, or local government control (Wikipedia). The constitutional issue is, or at least should, for that reason mainly be focused around whether the Second