gun control

U.S. Constitution, Bill of Rights, Amendment 2

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.

---------------------------

It was actually the FoundingFathers Thomas Jefferson and George Mason, wily and esoteric, well-intentionedand pragmatic, writers of that durable document The U.S. Constitution who opened the doors to more than twocenturies of debate over the issue of gun control. The vague language of the second amendment,in which the second half of the sentence has nothing or everything to do withthe first half, has led to countless debates and lawsuits decided upon by thenine Justices of the Supreme Court. Weknow that trying to understand the “intention of the authors” is riskybusiness, especially when they are less than precise in diction andpunctuation. However, that is exactlythe problem facing the Court each time a challenge to the second amendment ispresented. The agent of the passivevoice verb (shall not be infringed)is also less than clear. Are we to fearour own government? Of course, theFounding Fathers, recently victorious against the absolute monarch King GeorgeIII and still harboring trepidations of autocratic power in the government,might have stipulated the amendment to guarantee freedom for its citizens fromgovernment, military, and arbitrary law.

The issue of gun control cuts tothe very heart of America,a country with the highest number of murders per year and the highest homiciderate in the world. There are more than20,000 gun murders each year in the United States,more than 25 times the number in Japan,England, Italy, or Poland, countries where citizens donot have the right to own firearms. Theincrease in violence in schools and in the workplace, on the streets and in thehouses, has brought the issue to the forefront of a national debate. Nevertheless, politicians often consider itpolitical suicide to oppose the right of Americans to own guns.

Proponents of this “inherent” rightsupport their opinion that guns are necessary not only for hunting and animalcontrol, but also for self-protection. If criminals have guns, then law-abiding citizens must be able to ownthem, too, or else be at a distinct disadvantage. The National Rifle Association (NRA), foundedin 1871 and with headquarters in Washington, D.C., has more than 4.3 millionmembers. The NRA is a powerful politicalaction group, and has been quite successful in persuading Congress to block thepassage of gun control bills. CharletonHeston, Hollywood actor, prominent spokesperson on the issue, and president ofthe NRA since 1998, speaking before the Senate Judiciary Committee on September23, 1998, declared, “ The law-abiding citizen is entitled to own a rifle, pistol, or shotgun.The right, put simply, shall not be infringed"(http://www.nrawinningteam.com/hestquot.html).

Opponents of the second amendmentcite the fact that the original reason for the bill, to provide arms for awell-regulated militia, being necessary for the security of a free state, no longer exists since there isno such body as a civilian militia today. In addition, when the Founding Fathers wrote the Bill of Rights, it wasquite difficult to operate a firearm, inserting gunpowder, lighting the kegwith a match. After the invention of thereloading revolver by Samuel Colt in 1835, handguns became criminalweapons. The concept of “arms” is quitedifferent today than it was in 1789 when the Constitution was written. Opponents also cite the high number ofaccidental homicides, often committed unintentionally by children, simplybecause of the presence of unsecured and loaded firearms in the home. Michael Moore, Academy Award-winning directorof the documentary Bowling for Columbine, presents an interesting counter-argument to Heston’s concepts.

The issue, of course, is unresolved and the debate unabated. The fact thatthe U.S. Constitution has withstood the challenge of constant interpretationand re-interpretation, is a tribute to the skill of its framers, who sought notabsolute precision but an elastic sense of meaning to be understood inever-changing circumstances.