The Minuteman: The Official Newspaper of Newark Academy since 1940

The Minuteman

The Official Newark Academy Newspaper

Gun Rights in the Twenty-First Century

—

by

cpan18
in

By Spencer Glassman ’19, Staff Writer

The second amendment of the United States Constitution. Image courtesy of Randy Neugebauer.
The Second Amendment of the United States Constitution. Image courtesy of Randy Neugebauer.

Gun control is at the forefront of our national conversation. Americans have begun to question our gun rights because of recent mass shootings, particularly in schools. The calls are born out of the witnessing of tragedy and the inability to relate to men from hundreds of years ago. Despite this, the 1791 decision is still extremely important today. Americans must stand up for their constitutional rights and defend the right to bear arms, create safer communities, and educate the general population on gun issues.

After the Oregon Massacre and the Sandy Hook tragedy, the response by many advocates of gun control was to push their ideology and agenda. The Obama administration’s response to Oregon should have focused on mourning and remembrance, but instead, he called for the politicizing of the event. His out-of-touch comments led to his unpopularity in the region near the shooting. Unfortunately, every piece of proposed and enacted gun control legislation would not have prevented the Oregon Massacre and Sandy Hook. Historically, Connecticut has some of the strictest gun laws in the country, yet the Sandy Hook killing spree was not prevented. The two major proposals set forth by President Obama, according to the National Committee of State Legislatures, are increased background checks and a ban on assault weapons. Celinez Nunez of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and explosives stated that the Oregon Shooter had five pistols and only one rifle. His family purchased the guns through a federally approved firearms dealer.

Gun control advocates have popularized the misconception that the Constitution protects only gun rights in a militia. However, hundreds of years of Supreme Court decisions, most particularly the landmark 2008 case District of Columbia v. Heller, have established that the Second Amendment was meant to protect two distinct rights, that to create and maintain a militia, and separately the right to own firearms. Even individual states have implanted gun rights in their constitutions, such as Connecticut whose Article One Section Fifteen writes, “Every citizen has the right to bear arms in defense of himself [or herself] and the state.” The District of Columbia, which has the strictest gun laws in the country, has by far the highest gun murder, and murder rate in the country (the only region in the United States with a double digit murder rate). If there were to be a complete ban on guns, or even a major restriction, it would only hurt innocent people. Most murders happen in urban settings where gang violence is prevalent, like Chicago, where the 2015 death toll as of October 25th was 398, according to the leading neighborhood news source DNAInfo. Chicago is a hot spot for gang and drug crimes. The gangs can get guns illegally through the black market. If there were any type of major restriction on firearms, innocent citizens would be at a serious disadvantage.

It has been a while since people have seen a tyrannical government take over and threaten the United States, so it seems silly, even absurd, that guns are supposed to protect people from their governments. However, every major power in the world, other than the United States, has been ruled by an oppressive government at some point since 1776. But because of the freedoms in the United States, including the right to own firearms, we have never had to deal with that horrible situation.

Simple steps can be taken in order to fix the current crisis in America. One idea is to create after school programs for at-risk children and get them off of the streets. This will keep them entertained, educated, and away from the bad influence of drugs and gangs. Other steps can be to create Community Watch and social programs that help keep localities safe and foster positive relationships among neighbors.

To reduce the murder totals in the United States, some common sense laws need to be passed. One of these is to eliminate access to guns for people with mental health issues. Families who have relatives with a mental health problem should be required to report the case to a mental hospital or government and police authorities. Mental health patients can then be treated and protected in order to make sure they are safe from the community and the community is safe from them. This doesn’t mean they will be isolated and locked in a room, rather, it would mean that people with conditions that obscure their decision-making capabilities are monitored. None of these laws means taking guns away from the general population of civilians; in fact, the laws would be put in place to make sure these civilians have the right to keep and to buy guns at their own discretion.

Anyone will admit that murder in this country is a serious problem and must be addressed, but going overboard with new restrictions will not solve the problem and will only take away freedoms from citizens. More people need to fight for their rights and recognize our country’s values and traditions. We all need to reassure ourselves that we don’t need to lose any freedoms to solve tough crises.

This article reflects the opinion of one staff writer, not The Minuteman as a whole. Check out this article for an alternate perspective! 

Comments

3 responses to “Gun Rights in the Twenty-First Century”

  1. rdibianca Avatar
    rdibianca

    The Second Amendment begins, “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State…”

    “Well regulated”–an interesting phrase. Forms of the word “regulate” appear in the U.S. Constitution eight times. (Regulation sure seems important to the Founding Fathers.) Notably, though, it’s only in the Second Amendment that the adverb “well” was written in to precede “regulated”: “well regulated.”

    I am curious why the framers of the Constitution explicitly used “well regulated” to begin the Second Amendment? Assuming that the primary regulatory concern in 1789 was not mental health, in what ways might they have wanted American gun ownership to be “well regulated?”

    1. sglassman19 Avatar
      sglassman19

      I thank you for reading my article and taking the time to comment, I very much appreciate that. You raise a good point in questioning the use of well, as it is curious why they would only use it in one place in the constitution. I can only suggest but well regulated was used in front of militia not in front of “the right of the people to keep and bear arms.” Regulating a militia is different than enforcing gun control, as a regulated militia would mean good organization similar to a nation’s army, unlike a guerrilla army or collection of lone wolves. I could only research to find out what the further regulation of a militia would be, as they are clearly not completely taking away the right. If it has to do with weapons I can only infer that it would be applied to canons or horses. It seems apparent to me that the founding fathers would write the amendment differently if they intended well regulated to be applied to the right to bear arms, and would read A militia, and the right of citizens o bear arms, as long as they are well regulated, can not be infringed. This is only a presumption and it is up to us and our judicial system in order to reach a definite conclusion.

      1. rdibianca Avatar
        rdibianca

        Thank you for responding to my question about the phrase, “well-regulated”, Mr. Glassman. If you are right that the phrase refers only to militia–or, as you say “good organization similar to a nation’s army”–this begs a second and much more important question than my previous one. The Second Amendment ends with the right itself, “the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” But that right is qualified. It is linked to the first half of the sentence, which is this dependent clause: “a well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State.” In other words, the right to own guns exists because we need an army to protect our nation. Since we no longer have a militia and if, as you suggest, the modern equivalent is an organized, national army (which we do have and which is both well-regulated and well-armed), then how is the Second Amendment relevant to civilians…at all?

Leave a Reply