What Is Your View On The Second Amendment?
The second amendment in the Bill of Rights to the US Constitution states:
“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.”
Historically, organizations who
were in power prevented for limited the citizens ability to have arms that
would allow them to support an uprising. The state owned the weapons and thus
had greater control over the citizenry.
The framers of the Constitution
thought it critical that citizens be able possess arms. Also, there was no
intent to have a large standing Army. A
militia is it military group of citizens who are called upon to come together
to help defend the state. Citizens brought their own arms.
There have been many decades of
debate on this amendment. How many and what types of arms can a citizen possess
is the central debate. At the time of the drafting of the second amendment
there were to basic arms a citizen could have. One was a long barrel musket and
the other was a short barrel. Both had the capability the only fire one bullet
at a time. It been required a manual reloading process that took some time.
These weapons had a relatively short range of effectiveness.
As technology progressed, the
capabilities of weapons vastly improved. A citizen today can possess firepower
that a general in World War II would have found unbelievable. Not only can
someone have a weapon that fires hundreds of rounds per minute, they can also
possess a weapon capable of hitting a target a mile away.
The staunch defenders of the
second amendment claim that weapons are used for hunting and personal safety.
I don’t think you can read
anywhere in the Second Amendment that hunting and personal safety were part of
it. It was all tied to a militia and protecting the State.
Hunting and personal safety are
legitimate reasons to own a weapon(s). However,
I believe anyone who possesses a weapon should be subjected to a background
check to determine if there is a reason to prevent them from having one. Also,
all weapons should be licensed and registered. I do not believe it is an imposition
on someone if they have to wait 3 to 5 days for a background check before they
can take ownership of a weapon.
I also don’t believe that there
is a legitimate reason for someone to possess a weapon capable of killing
someone a mile away. Specifically, I am talking about a 50 caliber sniper
rifle. You will never be able to convince me that this type of weapon has a
legitimate use for hunting or personal safety.
The defense for having fully
automated weapons that have a high volume of fire for personal safety is also
not legitimate. I don’t think everyone should have the right to possess a
weapon of this capability in order to defend yourself in the one in a million
chance it may be required.
One area of the Second Amendment that is not
mentioned is how much ammunition a citizen can own. The State may allow you to
possess firearms, however, if ammunition is restricted then you have effectively
annulled the Second Amendment. A citizen
should have the right to possess ammunition required for the type of firearm they
own. A citizen should have the right to produce ammunition for their firearms.
But, if a citizen wants to sell ammunition then that transaction should be
regulated and the same background procedures for a firearm should be employed.
I do not want to abolish the
Second Amendment. I do not agree with the side that says no one should own a
weapon or the other side that says someone should have unlimited ability to
possess as many types of weapons they choose.
Ownership of a weapon is a
right under the Constitution. This right should not be infringed. However, the
type and number of weapons that a citizen can “keep and bear” can be regulated.
Also, when and how a person can obtain a weapon should also be regulated.
No comments:
Post a Comment