The tragedy at Virginia Technical University has rekindled the debate over gun control in America, which in 2003 had 41 gun deaths for every 1,000,000 people (Brazil had 213, while England and Wales had .3). One obvious source of discussion is the wording of the amendment itself, which contains a number of phrases subject to interpretation.
The text of the amendment, as originally passed by the Senate and the House of Representatives, reads:
"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."
(Some versions of the amendment place commas after 'militia,' and 'arms.')
Historically, the second amendment was the product of a compromise between the Federalists, proponents of a stronger centralized government, and the Anti-Federalists, who feared a return to tyranny if the new political system gave too much power to the government. At the time, there was some debate among the framers of the Constitution about the necessity of a standing army. Those who feared the intrusions of government reasoned that a standing army would be an invitation for the president to use the army for either conquest or to rule the country with an iron fist. The thought was the second amendment would both protect people from the intrusions of the government and allow the states to maintain militias to provide for defense.
One major area of interpretation of the amendment lies in the opening clause, "a well-regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State...." It seems likely that Madison, who was a Federalist and would have opposed placing too much power in the hands of the people, wanted to indicate that the right to keep and bear arms should not be infringed insofar as a 'well-regulated' militia is necessary. The word regulate means "to control by rule, or to direct"--a choice of words appropriate for a champion of a strong federal system. Furthermore, Madison was not the greatest believer in the ability of man to govern himself, so it seems consistent with his views that he would not want an armed citizenry threatening the order of the government.
The courts have consistently ruled that states may regulate guns in a variety of ways, including the use of child locks, bans on handguns, bans on assault rifles, and mandatory waiting periods. A law restricting gun ownership to members of a state directed and controlled militia would not seem to run afoul of the Constitution. A strict constructionist would be forced to acknowledge the function of the opening clause, while a jurist who attempts to interpret the Constitution in terms of the framer's intent would have to consider Madison's avowed support of a strong federal system. It would not be impossible to imagine an America in which gun ownership was a rare privilege, restricted to the few armed individuals needed to ensure the "security of a free State," not simply the security of the individual.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comment:
First of all, I believe the correct name for the school you are referring to is Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University. But that is just a technicality, for I knew what you meant, my philosopher friend. Let me begin my retort by saying I agree that it just might be a great idea to limit gun access in this country to a select few. However, how would you keep guns out of the hands of criminals? Yes it is true that the VT student legally obtained his gun and limited gun access may have prevented his purchase, but who is to say he would not have obtained guns on a black market if legal access was not an option? Some people have even argued that had some of the VT students been carrying guns, more lives could have been saved. What do you say to that argument? I personally don’t agree with it. But there is no simple solution here, so more discussion is necessary. Gun violence is no black and white matter and the powerful gun lobby in this country proudly brandishes the second amendment in its defense. At the very least, a person with a record of stalking should not have been allowed to legally purchase a gun. And the automatic weapons ban should have never been allowed to expire. For Americans, guns symbolize a certain freedom and individuality that they are known for and proudly defend. But humans have chosen to live in a society - not alone in a state of nature - and therefore they should work together to create a government and laws that minimize the worst and maximize the best of what societal living entails. Gun violence, whether it stems from lack of gun control or a mental health crisis, is not on the good list. Also, I wouldn’t be Animal Advocate if I didn’t point out that many gun advocacy arguments are made in the name of hunting. While hunting was useful during our pre-farming history and while it’s excusable if the hunter eats the game in place of a factory-farmed animal and the death is quick and painless, this is often not the case. Many hunters defend their right to partake in this activity purely for “sport.” Even worse, many hunters only wound their targets, which leaves the animals with a slow and painful death in the wild. Personally I find it hard to see how killing or wounding a sentient being just for fun is anything but cruel. All needless inflictions of pain or death are cruel and immoral.
Post a Comment