In light of the Newton, Connecticut tragedy late last year, the country has debated guns more frequently than Snoop Dogg has gotten high. While I think it was about time the country stopped seemingly ignoring gun violence and started talking about the issue, in the end, I don't think the majority of such conversations have been very productive.
While I definitely do support some gun control measures, so the NRA can label me as a "crazy, left-wing, anti-gun, circus freak" or whatever they'd like, I do try to understand others' arguments, no matter how different from mine they may be. However, when it has come to far-right anti-gun control arguments, I've only run into two: 1) "Guns don't kill people; people kill people" and 2) "The 2nd Amendment of the Constitution says, '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.'"
I've written at length about the first argument, but haven't written much about the second. When it comes to the first argument, I see both sides as being half right. While it's true that gun violence doesn't occur without the presence of a human being behind the trigger, it also doesn't occur without said trigger. I don't know too many victims whom have died via gun violence without there being the presence of a gun.
The second argument is a bit trickier than the first. What I've come to find, however, is that the majority of people interpret the Second Amendment to mold their belief system. While pro-gun control individuals may focus their attention more on the words "well regulated militia," anti-gun control individuals are more apt to focusing their attention on the words "right...bear arms" and "shall not be infringed."
First of all, let's keep in mind, this was adopted 222 years ago in 1791. Things have changed ever so slightly since then. Let's also keep in mind that prior to the American Revolution, each colony had a state militia - there to protect again "Indian" and French attacks. When these attacks decreased in frequency, pro-gun control laws began passing - such as one prohibiting people from carrying a handgun into town. In other words, it appears as if the NRA has drastically altered the intent of the Second Amendment and has more or less controlled the narrative regarding it for the past 30 years.
What the NRA has done is altered the interpretation of the Second Amendment from it centering around a "well regulated militia," which it states verbatim, to individuals, which it doesn't state anywhere even close to verbatim. Unfortunately, this psychological tactic known as the mere-exposure effect has paid dividends for the NRA. Many on the far-right end of the political spectrum, when discussing gun rights, discuss them as individual rights and believe the Constitution specifically guarantees this. However, that's not exactly the case, and many need to realize just because a gun-control measure is being discussed with the potential of passing, that it doesn't necessarily infringe on their Second Amendment rights. It may infringe on these rights according to the NRA's distorted interpretation of the Second Amendment, but not the actual Second Amendment.
Lastly, at the end of the day, no one - not any pro-gun control person or anti-gun control person - wrote any portion of the U.S. Constitution. Not one of us personally knew the Founding Fathers of this country. Because of this, not one of us could therefore give a 100% accurate interpretation of their intent with any particular writing. We can guess. We can use their writings of over 200 years ago as clues to predict how they would feel about certain issues today. However, we'll never know just how accurate those predictions are. Due to this, I think it's pretty absurd for some on the far-right to almost obsess over the Second Amendment, which was adopted 222 years ago by individuals none of us will ever meet or know in any context. Due to this, the Second Amendment is a pretty worthless document when it comes to today's society. Unfortunately, the NRA has adopted their own version of this document and persuaded many that their version of it is the most authentic. The day this country classifies the National Rifle Association as the Founding Fathers is the day I move somewhere else.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/burton-newman/the-nras-fraud-fabricatio_b_3103358.html
While I definitely do support some gun control measures, so the NRA can label me as a "crazy, left-wing, anti-gun, circus freak" or whatever they'd like, I do try to understand others' arguments, no matter how different from mine they may be. However, when it has come to far-right anti-gun control arguments, I've only run into two: 1) "Guns don't kill people; people kill people" and 2) "The 2nd Amendment of the Constitution says, '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.'"
I've written at length about the first argument, but haven't written much about the second. When it comes to the first argument, I see both sides as being half right. While it's true that gun violence doesn't occur without the presence of a human being behind the trigger, it also doesn't occur without said trigger. I don't know too many victims whom have died via gun violence without there being the presence of a gun.
The second argument is a bit trickier than the first. What I've come to find, however, is that the majority of people interpret the Second Amendment to mold their belief system. While pro-gun control individuals may focus their attention more on the words "well regulated militia," anti-gun control individuals are more apt to focusing their attention on the words "right...bear arms" and "shall not be infringed."
First of all, let's keep in mind, this was adopted 222 years ago in 1791. Things have changed ever so slightly since then. Let's also keep in mind that prior to the American Revolution, each colony had a state militia - there to protect again "Indian" and French attacks. When these attacks decreased in frequency, pro-gun control laws began passing - such as one prohibiting people from carrying a handgun into town. In other words, it appears as if the NRA has drastically altered the intent of the Second Amendment and has more or less controlled the narrative regarding it for the past 30 years.
What the NRA has done is altered the interpretation of the Second Amendment from it centering around a "well regulated militia," which it states verbatim, to individuals, which it doesn't state anywhere even close to verbatim. Unfortunately, this psychological tactic known as the mere-exposure effect has paid dividends for the NRA. Many on the far-right end of the political spectrum, when discussing gun rights, discuss them as individual rights and believe the Constitution specifically guarantees this. However, that's not exactly the case, and many need to realize just because a gun-control measure is being discussed with the potential of passing, that it doesn't necessarily infringe on their Second Amendment rights. It may infringe on these rights according to the NRA's distorted interpretation of the Second Amendment, but not the actual Second Amendment.
Lastly, at the end of the day, no one - not any pro-gun control person or anti-gun control person - wrote any portion of the U.S. Constitution. Not one of us personally knew the Founding Fathers of this country. Because of this, not one of us could therefore give a 100% accurate interpretation of their intent with any particular writing. We can guess. We can use their writings of over 200 years ago as clues to predict how they would feel about certain issues today. However, we'll never know just how accurate those predictions are. Due to this, I think it's pretty absurd for some on the far-right to almost obsess over the Second Amendment, which was adopted 222 years ago by individuals none of us will ever meet or know in any context. Due to this, the Second Amendment is a pretty worthless document when it comes to today's society. Unfortunately, the NRA has adopted their own version of this document and persuaded many that their version of it is the most authentic. The day this country classifies the National Rifle Association as the Founding Fathers is the day I move somewhere else.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/burton-newman/the-nras-fraud-fabricatio_b_3103358.html
Comments
Post a Comment