The right to bear arms

Right to Bear Arms

In order to understand the importance of the right to bear arms, one must have a clear understanding of the events leading up to the American Revolution. The American colonists were being subjected to a form of government that they viewed as a form of tyranny. They confronted that tyranny with an armed rebellion, which they asserted was self-defense against the tyranny. Moreover, in the debates leading up to the ratification of the Constitution and the selection of the American form of government, the founding fathers discussed various different methods of keeping a militia ready to defend the new nation. One of the options that were discussed was having the government keep control of people's weapons. However, in the wake of the revolt against Great Britain, it was clear to the founding fathers that the people needed to have possession of their weapons because they may have to defend themselves against the government. This is an important consideration that is frequently lost in modern discussions about gun control, which discuss the average person's need for certain types of weaponry. The reality is that the founders intended the citizenry to have access to the same type of weaponry as the government, because the right of individual citizens to bear arms was intended as a direct protection against governmental tyranny.

One of the issues with the right to bear arms is that modern America has been plagued by gun violence. There are familiar platitudes that dismiss the role that guns play in escalating American murder rates, such as "Guns don't kill people, people kill people." While that is an accurate statement, it is, nevertheless, a misleading one. The harsh reality is that ready access to guns has contributed to America's high rates of murder and violent crime. However, the fact that a civil right has definite downfalls does not mean that the civil right should be abandoned or altered. There are definite drawbacks to each of the rights enumerated in the Bill of Rights, and permitting the government to abridge those rights would contribute to a more peaceable and manageable society. However, America's courts and citizenry have consistently reaffirmed the idea that safety is meaningless without liberty.

The American Revolution

For most of their history, the American colonies were permitted to grow and develop with minimal interference from Britain. Of course, the colonies existed to provide for the financial health of Britain, but that was accomplished through America's normal economic transactions and nominal rates of taxes. However, in 1763, England and France ended the French and Indian War, which greatly increased British holdings in America. Britain, desiring to protect its new holdings, passed the Stamp Act in 1765. Britain repealed the Stamp Act in 1766, but, at the same time, passed the Declaratory Act, which asserted Britain's right to make laws that were binding upon the colonies. The Declaratory Act was significant, because, theoretically, parliament should have had the ability to pass binding laws on one of their colonial holdings absent such an act. Passing the Declaratory Act was a somewhat desperate act, because, with it, parliament tacitly acknowledged that it had lost control of the colonies. In 1768, Britain sent troops to the colonies to enforce custom laws, which provided taxes to Britain. In 1770, the Boston Massacre, the killing of four colonists by British troops in Boston, helped demonstrate that the British government was not interested in protecting the interests of the colonists. After a series of similar incidents, which revealed to the colonists that parliament was not concerned with protecting their interests or giving them any type of representation, a group of patriots protested the British Tea Act by dumping crates of tea into Boston Harbor. In 1774, the First Continental Congress convened in Philadelphia; there, leading colonists, many of whom would become key figures in the Revolution and the early government discussed the options the colonists had for dealing with Britain and petitioned King George for redress of some of the grievances the colonists had with Britain. In 1775, the "shot heard round the world" was fired at Lexington and Concord, marking the beginning of the actual Revolutionary War. Minute men, armed colonists, were able to force the British troops back to Boston.

Forming the American Government

Given that armed citizens were the driving fighting force in the Revolutionary War, it should come as no surprise that America's earliest citizens stressed the importance of allowing the citizenry to remain armed. If one peruses the Federalist Papers, one sees that the founding fathers were very concerned about allowing the citizenry to retain their right to bear arms. Alexander Hamilton stated:

If the representatives of the people betray their constituents, there is then no recourse left but in the exertion of that original right of self-defense which is paramount to all positive forms of government, and which against the usurpations of the national rulers may be exerted with infinitely better prospect of success than against those of the rulers of an individual State. In a single State, if the persons entrusted with supreme power become usurpers, the different parcels, subdivisions, or districts of which it consists, having no distinct government in each, can take no regular measures for defense. The citizens must rush tumultuously to arms, without concert, without system, without resource; except in their courage and despair. (Hamilton, Federalist 28).

Furthermore, Hamilton addressed the issue of whether an armed citizenry would be necessary if the country had a standing army, and made it clear that he believed that a standing army would actually make it more important for the citizenry to be armed, "if circumstances should at any time oblige the government to form an army of any magnitude, that army can never be formidable to the liberties of the people, while there is a large body of citizens, little if at all inferior to them in discipline and use of arms, who stand ready to defend their rights." (Hamilton, Federalist 29).

Moreover, it was not only federalists who believed that the people had a right to bear arms. In the wake of the Revolution, new Americans realized that, had they not been armed, they would not have been able to triumph in the war. In early British history, citizens were required to be armed, so that they could serve as members of a citizen army, if necessary. However, as political systems changed and the government was able to provide a standing militia, the English monarchs gradually began to restrict the owning of arms, which led to a revolt and ended up with Parliament granting Protestant Britons the right to bear arms. (Hardy). Despite that, the citizen militia began to shrink and to be confined to members of the more elite class. However, that experience was not reflected in the American colonies, where colonists armed themselves, and, if unable to afford to do so, could obtain weapons from the government. There was an absolute expectation that the citizenry would be able to arm themselves. When the Revolution began, the initial British attacks were upon militia arsenals, but the people were sufficiently well-armed to ensure that the militias could seize "political control at the grass roots." (Hardy). Therefore, while not everyone supported the federal-type of government system proposed by the founding fathers, almost all of the Revolutionary-War era information about guns and weaponry unequivocally supports the idea that citizens should have the right to bear arms.

The Constitutional Right to Bear Arms

For such a significant right, which was clearly seen as essential to freedom by the former colonists, it may be surprising to know that the right to bear arms was not contained within the text of the original constitution. However, none of the enumerated rights associated with the Constitution were actually contained in the Constitution, but were the result of constitutional amendments during the first session of Congress. "Madison drafted twelve amendments, Congress proposed them, and the states ratified ten of them in 1791." (Chapter 2, p.44). Those ten amendments came to be known as the Bill of Rights and directly addressed the rights of citizens in the newly formed United States of America. The right to bear arms to form a militia, contained in the Second Amendment, grew out of the colonial experience with Great Britain. (Chapter 2, p.44). The text of the Second Amendment provides, "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." (U.S. Const. amend. II).

Given that there is currently a fierce nationwide debate about gun control, it is important to understand the scope of the Second Amendment. The Second Amendment makes it clear that the right to bear arms is linked to citizens being able to protect themselves by forming a militia. Combined with the framer's intent, which can be ascertained by examining the Federalist Papers and other contemporary documents, this right was not to be abrogated simply because the government established standing armies or other governmental agencies whose role was to protect the people. The framers did not mention police departments or other local governmental units, which has led to some misconceptions about the right of people to arm themselves when protected by municipal government agencies. However, this is because municipal police forces, as they currently exist, did not exist at the time of the Revolutionary War. The closest approximation was a standing army or militia, and the concerns about the citizenry failing to arm themselves in that scenario were made clear in the debates and documents leading up to the ratification of the Constitution.

Modern Views on Gun Control

However, some time people ratification of the Constitution and modern times, the issue of gun control became one that divided people along ideological lines, rather than one about which people were united. States in America are frequently referred to as either red or blue, with red states representing Republican strongholds and blue states representing Democrat strongholds:

Conservative red America has been described as religious, moralistic, patriotic, white, masculine, and less educated. Liberal blue America has been depicted as secular, relativistic, internationalist, multicultural, feminine, and college educated. Reds are seen as supporting guns, the death penalty, and the Iraq War, blues as supporting abortion and the environment. (Chapter 4, p. 108).

While these are stereotypes that do not define all voters in either political block, the reality is that the issue of gun control has become a hot-button political issue.

Why is Gun Control a Major Issue

When one looks at the number of violent crimes where guns are involved, it seems reasonable to suggest that gun control would be a major issue in the United States. It is certainly true that gun crime is higher in the United States than in countries where the citizens do not have access to weapons. It is also certainly true that when a firearm is involved a crime can go from merely violent to deadly in a matter of moments. Incidents like the horrible Columbine High School massacre help demonstrate the fact that, once guns are involved in a violent situation, the violence can rapidly escalate. However, the reality is that far more Americans are killed in automobile accidents each year than by gun fire, and yet no one is suggesting that people outlaw automobiles. One reason that gun control might be such a highly-discussed issue is that the media has a slightly left-leaning bias, which is not surprising given that journalists are generally highly-educated, and more highly-educated people tend to lean towards the left. "Anecdotal reports of the coverage of…domestic issues such as gay rights, gun control, capital punishment, the environment, and homelessness…suggest some bias towards the left." (Chapter 5, p.144). Therefore, the media portrayal of the number of people who do not support gun control may be inadequate. There may also be a bias towards depicting those who support the right to bear arms as gun nuts or fans of violence. It is certainly the case that mainstream journalists fail to describe the patriotic history behind the Second Amendment when discussing gun control issues, leaving members of the public with the impression that the right is antiquated because people are no longer required to hunt for their food and have adequate protection from local law enforcement agencies.

In fact, even the textbook attempts to mislead people about the nature of the Second Amendment. In Chapter 14, the textbook addresses the right to bear arms, and argues that those in favor of the right to bear arms fail to address the fact that the Second Amendment links that right to a well-ordered militia. In fact, the textbook explicitly provides that:

The language [of the Second Amendment] links the right to bear arms with the security of the state. The language suggests that the right belongs to each state or, if to individuals, only to individuals when they are protecting their state- that is, when they are serving in the militia of their state. (Chapter 14, p.493).

Anyone who understands the Federalist discussions of the right to bear arms knows that position is an absolute misrepresentation of the founder's intent with the Second Amendment. The founding fathers feared a standing army and wanted to assure individual citizens that they would have the right to self-protection, which should not be abridged even if the country develops a standing army. Moreover, when one views the Bill of Rights as a whole, one sees a document that is concerned with individual rights, not state's rights, so it seems ludicrous to suggest that the Second Amendment would refer to a state's right to maintain a militia. Both of those facts are made perfectly clear when one reads the Federalist Papers. Moreover, while the textbook acknowledges that a more expansive interpretation may allow individuals the right to use arms to protect themselves, it suggests that people would not be guaranteed the right to bear arms for hunting or any purpose other than self-defense. However, when one looks at how Britain curtailed individual liberties