Am I an Incredibly Stupid Man
02/17/2013
"You're an incredibly stupid man, aren't you?" Piers Morgan stated this infamous phrase when he derided the Gun Owners of America director Larry Pratt on a live interview a few months ago. The two argued over the classic question: “Does an increase of guns increase or decrease violent crime?â€
Whenever guns are brought up in American politics, people tend to argue over the wrong aspects of guns and gun control (e.g. gun crimes and dangers). Instead, one should examine exactly what the second amendment is and why we have it. It is always important to start at the root of the tree rather than the branches.
Here is the second amendment:
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.
Before we attempt to exegete this amendment, we need to study the origins and history of the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution.
One should begin with the Declaration of Independence. Thomas Jefferson wrote it, and he directly quoted from John Locke’s Second Treatise of Government when he wrote, “But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security†(Constitution). Jefferson mentions that it is the duty of the people to overthrow a tyrannical government. The American colonists exercised this duty when they rebelled against the British.
The Constitution of the United States of America was created almost two decades after the Declaration, but it in no way was meant to diminish the Constitution; it sets limits on the Federal government to ensure that the government never infringes on the natural, God-given rights of the people: life, liberty and property. As Abraham Lincoln put it, the Constitution is the golden apple (the treasure), and the Constitution is the silver frame that protects the apple; the frame was made for the apple, not vice versa. Hence, we must remember that the Constitution protects us from a government that might desire to trample on our natural rights.
The Bill of Rights (the first ten amendments) was added before the Constitution was ratified. Some states were worried that the Constitution would supersede state sovereignty. It is important to note that the Bill of Rights entirely pertains to Individual rights, not to state rights. The Bill of Rights, as with the Constitution, is grounded in Lockian philosophy. According to the Bill or Rights Institute, the Bill of Rights was written to grant greater constitutional protection for individual liberties; the Bill of Rights lists specific prohibitions on governmental power. (“Bill of Rights of the United States of America,†2010). The Constitution was initially written to define governmental limits, not citizen limits.
So how does this influence one’s interpretation of the second amendment? If one believes that the second amendment refers to hunting, then one could make the case that citizens are only guaranteed the right to bear bolt action rifles and shotguns: these are appropriate guns for hunting. But is this what the Second Amendment refers to? Certainly not. It is absurd to believe that an 18th century nation that relied on hunting would even consider making hunting a right since hunting played such a pivotal role in their diet.
The second amendment is clearly about the citizen militia (not the so-called professional military). We all have the right to bear arms to preserve the security of a free state. We have the right to use our guns for self-defense and to prevent government tyranny. Remember, according to the Declaration, it is the duty of the people to overthrow a tyrannical government.
So from this premise, we know that the Second Amendment protects all weapons that citizens can use to defend themselves against the government. Remember, this is an individual right, so the weapons must be operable by one person. It seems logical to conclude that weapons such as handguns and all rifles should be legal. By rifles, I mean all rifles including automatic and semi-automatic. These weapons can be reasonable used to attack specific targets. Citizens should not be able to own weapons like killer viruses or nuclear bombs because such weapons are not discriminatory in nature; all people in the danger zone will be obliterated. I like how Thornwell Simmons put it, “It is clear that any tool of self defense you choose must be a tool you can direct to be capable of discriminating between an attacker and an innocent†(2002).
Admittedly, there are certain weapons that are more difficult to decide on (e.g. explosives and heavy artillery). State and Federal legislatures can debate controversial weapons. However, it is reasonable to conclude that all handguns and rifles, regardless of magazine capacity and rate of fire, are protected by the second amendment.
Remember, our founders used their guns (not sticks or stones) to gain freedom. It is not crazy or absurd to fear that government will someday try to usurp power and take over. Read a few history books if you do not think that governments tend to do that. We need to cherish and protect this right. May God help us never clamp on our own shackles by banning guns from ourselves. Hopefully there are more "incredibly stupid people" like me and Larry Pratt who care about freedom.
1. http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/declaration_transcript.html
2. http://billofrightsinstitute.org/founding-documents/bill-of-rights/
3. http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/668387/posts
