Gun ownership rights and the Second Amendment debate

¶ … difficult buy a gun, a U.S. citizens amendment 8-10 pages length, double spaced, font 12 times roman. MLA standards 8-12 sources, 12-20 citations.

Why the U.S. should not ban gun control

There is presently much controversy regarding the U.S. And its position concerning gun control. With recent events such as the Newtown, Connecticut (a mass shooting involving 29 persons shot dead) dominating media devices, the public has become agitated concerning gun laws. The fact that these legislations provided an environment where guns can be used by a series of controversial individuals triggered alarm and influenced the masses to lobby with regard to reform. Even though gun control is especially important when considering conditions in the contemporary U.S., it is also significant for the authorities to acknowledge that guns are an active part of society and that people who meet a series of requirements associated with gun ownership need to have access to weapons.

The Second Amendment

The Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution only contains twenty-seven words, but in spite of this it has managed to generate numerous controversies through the years. "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." These words are responsible for fueling a great deal of debates and for making people confused with regard to their rights and to how they need to protect them. Guns play an important role in U.S. history and from the time when colonists brought their muskets to war until today, many Americans felt securer as a result of having access to guns on a legal basis (Gerber 6).

The moment when the Second Amendment was ratified in 1791 marked the beginning of an era in which the government acknowledges that owning a gun is a liberty. The American Revolution enabled people to look at their role within the community from a different perspective. American citizens realized that the forces of Power were constantly obsessed with persecuting simple people and that they were responsible for protecting the realm of Liberty (Shalhope).

Individuals who were in charge had a tendency to express lesser interest in protecting and maintaining a republican society. As a consequence, it became obvious that the U.S. was only likely to remain a haven of Liberty as long as its people kept their virtue and their ability to protect themselves. The Second Amendment is, in its essence, an attempt by the people to highlight the free individual's rights, and, by this, to provide people with the "right to bear arms" (Shalhope).

Two main principles support people's interest in the "right to bear arms." Firstly, the masses fear the idea of standing armies, taking into account that the government can easily manipulate armies to attack the general public in situations when the latter puts across thinking that is in disagreement with values supported by influential bodies. Secondly, people are concerned about having a militia composed out of simple and honest citizens, as such as military force would certainly be devoted to defending the rights of the people rather than acting in accordance with orders provided by controversial individuals. The people basically fight for the people and it is thus essential for numerous individuals in the U.S. To express particular interest about having access to guns (Shalhope).

The revolutionary war provided individuals across the colonies with the feeling that it was essential for them to have the right to legally own guns. The Second Amendment was actually devised as a means to ensure that the government is unable to take away this right. It is thus very problematic to discuss this matter today, considering that the contemporary U.S. is divided between individuals who support the "right to bear arms" and people who emphasize that the right to own guns does not necessarily apply to individual citizens.

IV. The Right of the People

The right to own guns is much more important than someone might be inclined to believe and the fact that "the right of the people" phrase is only used in the Constitution and the Bill of Rights three times emphasizes the significance of this right. "All three of these instances unambiguously refer to individual rights, not "collective" rights, or rights that may be exercised only through participation in some corporate body." (DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, ET AL., PETITIONERS v. DICK ANTHONY HELLER 5)

Interpreting the Second Amendment as only being meant to protect the right of able-bodied men to hold guns with the purpose of getting actively involved in a militia when the time comes is certainly wrong. Many promote the belief that the right to bear arms only referred to individuals in the 18th century and that this particular right was intended to have them prepared for a situation involving the authorities attempting to persecute them. However, similar to other amendments, the Second Amendment refers to American individuals in general, regardless of the time when they were born or of whether or not they are going to be part of a community serving as a militia. In addition to having to protect the state in critical situations, an individual also needs to be able to protect him or herself and in some cases the only way to do so is to own a gun and use it.

V. The case against gun ownership

There are numerous individuals in the U.S. who feel that guns should only be available to people who are actually part of a law-enforcement community. Most of these people believe that the Second Amendment provides criminals with the ability to procure guns with little to no trouble. However, they fail to understand that people who are predisposed to crime are more likely to get their weapons from street dealers rather than from certified shops. These individuals focus on evading the law and they are obviously well aware that buying a gun would be likely to get the authorities to express interest in their activities.

a. The Newtown school shooting

Events involving guns used in schools fuel mass-media stories influencing people to believe that gun ownership laws are one of the principal reasons why innocent are killed. Neil Heslin is the father of a boy who was killed during the Newtown school shooting and he is currently among the individuals passionate about getting the government to impose harsher gun control laws. Heslin believes that people's tendency to invoke the Second Amendment whenever they are presented with the opportunity to discuss gun ownership is a sign of ignorance. "A handful of people at the packed legislative hearing then shouted about their Second Amendment rights when Heslin asked if anyone could provide a reason for a civilian to own an assault-style weapon." (DAILY MAIL REPORTER) Moreover, Heslin believed that by considering the Second Amendment before actually thinking about the matter at hand individuals practically fail to even think about the harm done as a result of gun ownership laws. From his perspective, people like him are not trying to claim that the Constitution is wrong, as they are actually attempting to emphasize that much has changed ever since the Second Amendment was ratified and that the world as a whole would be a better place if only particular individuals would have access to owning guns.

While people are immediately inclined to express strong emotions when they come across a case such as the Newtown school shooting, most are probable to be indifferent with regard to isolate accounts involving people who were killed or seriously harmed as a result of the fact that they had no guns to defend themselves. A series of individuals have lobbied with regard to situations that were life-threatening and during which they felt helpless because the government was reluctant to provide them with the right to purchase a firearm (DAILY MAIL REPORTER).

b. The Virginia Tech Massacre

The Virginia Tech Massacre is yet another school shooting that influenced individuals to believe that it is essential for the Second Amendment to be modified in order for gun control laws to be stricter. The 2007 shooting involved a single individual killing thirty-two people and harming another seventeen during two attacks. People thinking the Second Amendment provides criminals with little to no impediments in purchasing guns associate their thinking with the fact that Cho Seung-Hui was able to buy the weapons he used with the purpose of going through with his devastating plan. However, these people fail to consider that "by the time Cho was standing in front of special justice Paul Barnett of Virginia's Montgomery County in December 2005, he had already been accused of stalking by two women on campus, detained by police who were concerned about his sanity, and ordered by a magistrate to a mental health hospital where he would be evaluated" (Lindenberger).

Although the Virginia Tech Massacre sends a signal regarding gun control, it does point toward the fact that people in general should not have access to firearms. Instead, it emphasizes that gun control needs to be provided with more attention in order for people buying weapons to be able to demonstrate that they are mentally stable and that they are not likely to use the respective guns with the purpose of harming innocent individuals.

c. The political factor

What is even more disturbing about school shootings and gun control laws is that many politicians take advantage of the opportunity to gather as many voters as possible by expressing interest in modifying the way the Second Amendment is interpreted with the purpose of preventing criminals from gaining easy access to firearms. "Almost immediately after the murders in Newtown, gun control advocates and the Democratic leadership in the Senate decided that legislation strengthening background checks for gun purchases was their best avenue for success" (Peters).

The Obama Administration has concentrated on promoting background checks in order to determine whether or not an individual should be allowed to own a firearm. It would be wrong to say that the President's efforts are not likely to have a series of positive effects. However, people cannot possibly live in a utopia-like society and believe that such measures are going to reduce crime or that they are going to stop ruthless criminals from going through with their plans. Such political strategies are little more than window dressing meant to get voters to think that it would be in their best interest to vote with a particular party or individual (Taube).

VI. Reform

Change needs to happen, but this does not mean that individuals should be denied the right to purchase firearms as long as they prove that they meet a series of requirements necessary for them to be considered apt. In order for the government to make the country a safer place, it needs to focus on devising strategies to prevent potential criminals from being provided with the right to bear arms. Former prisoners, individuals with a criminal record, and mentally deranged individuals should be among the first groups considered when coming up with the respective strategies.

It is certainly difficult to devise a plan meant to differentiate between persons who can own firearms and persons who cannot. Many judges are inclined to rob what they consider to be possible criminals from a series of liberties as they focus on making the world a better place. This is especially problematic when considering the mentally ill. When considering cases such as that involving Cho Seung-Hui, "government must balance the rights of the mentally ill and the duty of government to protect society from those who are dangerous" (Linderberger).

VII. Conclusion

Gun ownership is certainly a divisive matter and even though the Second Amendment emphasized the government's official attitude toward the issue, it would be difficult to determine its exact status. While numerous individuals promote the idea that it would be wrong for society to continue to allow American citizens to have access to guns, the reality is that the expression "guns don't kill people -- people kill people" is perfectly accurate. Criminals are always going to have access to guns as long as they struggle in order to do so and a law is not going to stop a person from performing criminal acts. The only solution to the problem would be for the government to install strategies that would prevent potential criminals from being able to purchase firearms.

Works cited:

Daily Mail Reporter, "Father of boy killed in Newtown school shooting heckled during legislative hearing as he begs for stricter gun control," Retrieved April 18, 2013, from the Daily Mail Website: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2269910/Parents-children-slain-Newtown-school-shooting-beg-legislators-stricter-gun-control.html

Gerber, Larry, "The Second Amendment: The Right to Bear Arms," (The Rosen Publishing Group, 15.01.2011)

Gould, Andrew R. "The Hidden Second Amendment Framework within District of Columbia V. Heller," Vanderbilt Law Review, Vol. 62, No. 5

Hatt, Kyle, "Gun-Shy Originalism: The Second Amendment's Original Purpose in District of Columbia V. Heller," Suffolk University Law Review, Vol. 44, No. 2

Jaffe, Harry, "DC Gun Rights: Do You Want This Next to Your Bed?," Retrieved April 18, 2013, from the Washingtonian Website: http://www.washingtonian.com/articles/people/dc-gun-rights-do-you-want-this-next-to-your-bed/

Lindenberger, Michael, "Why Was Cho Able to Buy a Gun?," Retrieved April 18, 2013, from the Time U.S. Website: http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1614199,00.html

Peters, Jeremy W., "For Senator, Bill's Defeat Is Personal and Political," Retrieved April 18, 2013, from the NY Times Website: http://www.nytimes.com/2013/04/18/us/politics/for-feinstein-gun-control-measures-defeat-was-personal.html

Shalhope, Robert T., "The Ideological Origins of the Second Amendment," The Journal of American History. Originally published as 69 J.AM.HIST. 599-614 (1982

Taube, Michael, "Obama's Baby Steps toward Gun Control; Killing the Second Amendment by Small Degrees" The Washington Times (Washington, DC)

"DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, ET AL., PETITIONERS v. DICK ANTHONY HELLER," Retrieved April 18, 2013, from the Cornell University Law School Website: http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/pdf/07-290P.ZO