“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 have been reiterated countless times by gun enthusiasts, lawyers, and judges. In the 2008 Supreme Court decision, on the matter of District of Columbia v. Heller, the court ruled in favor of individual gun ownership with the stipulation that the government reserves the right to regulate gun ownership. Though the majority of the legal dust has settled on the large front, there are still regulatory battles being waged against such practices as owning sawed off shotguns and automatic weaponry. With strong advocates on each side, the battle is continually waged between the advocates of freedom of the second amendment and those wishing to restrict it.
People arguing for unrestricted gun control state; that the second amendment offers them a fundamental right to bear arms. It is their right as Americans to have a weapon to defend their household and themselves, as well as hunt game if they so choose. The abridgment of that right is paramount to trampling on their very freedom. As evident by the arguments posed by this side, it is clear that the amendment is interpreted as protecting an individual’s right.
The group arguing against complete entitlement to bear arms states that the second amendment starts out with, “A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state…” Advocates against unrestricted gun ownership argue that the second amendment is mainly geared towards military purposes. Without the creation of a militia, the right of the people to bear arms is non-existent. This side of the spectrum argues that the amendment is meant to offer protection of the state’s interests through a well regulated militia.
These are examples of two perspectives that lean towards opposite and extreme corners of the debate. It has been a personal philosophy of mine to avoid extremism in any form. Therefore, I believe that there is a middle ground to be walked on this issue. It is important to first define what the amendment means by “well regulated militia.” In order to do that, we must understand the context in which this amendment was written. It was written at a time where the militia was an important element of the nation’s guard. Among other purposes, it’s most obvious was the defense against invasion as well as being a policing force. If we delve further into defining the term “regulated”, we find that in 1788, Alexander Hamilton wrote in the Federalist 29, “If a well regulated militia be the most natural defense of a free country, it ought certainly to be under the regulation and at the disposal of that body which is constituted the guardian of the national security.” Therefore, it seems like the intent was to create a government regulated militia.
Having defined “well regulated militia”, it is important to note that in our current time period; the police force, the government regulatory agencies, and the military establishments have adopted the functionality of the militia. However, the latter part of the amendment is still in need of addressing. I believe that for our modern society, the phrase “keep and bear arms” is far to general. In our current arsenal exists weapons that have automated firepower and the destructive capabilities of proportions that drafters of this amendment could not have foreseen. However, an individual has the right to defend themselves as well as hunt and this amendment empowers them to utilize arms to that end. Therefore, in the interest of public safety, as well as the compliance of the United States Constitution, it is important to regulate the weapons available for self-defense and hunting purposes.
It only takes one or two bullets to stop an attacker, not fifty. Therefore, unless taking on a small military group singlehandedly, there is absolutely no use for weapons of excessive destructive capabilities. It is my position that owning weapons is a fundamental right; however, it is a right that must be regulated for the purposes of public safety.
ModSociety 