Guns and the Young
Sep. 25th, 2008 02:06 am![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
dapper_danPerhaps it's kind of a shame that I went to the writer's block well for my first post. It's not that I actually have writer's block I just wanted something to put up while I fiddle with this journal thing and make sure it functions properly and looks all purdy. Besides, this is something I wanted to write about anyway, so now's a good a time as any. The big blame here goes to Ali and Jovis for nagging me into getting this thing.
I forget what I was watching today. It was some youtube clip from fox news. Probably Hannity & Combs or something, but that much is irrelevant. On the ticker at the bottom of the screen was a story about someone being shot (big surprise) and the possibility of using the wording of the second amendment in an attempt to create stricter gun control laws.
Somewhat shocked that attempts were still being made to abide by the constitution, and unimpressed by the shouting match on the rest of the screen, I read on. As written the second amendment 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." The argument that was being made was that because of this wording, The United states could restrict guns from everyone who is not a member of their state militia. However appealing this proposal may seem to your redneck registered gun nut psycho, it won't work. Restricting arms to the militia would actually do very little to restrict arms. This is because, by definition, The United States militia consists of all able bodied males between the ages of 17 and 45. This is how we once had a draft, and potentially could again. The law hasn't changed. The numbers of volunteer servicemen and women have been high enough to presently make a draft unnecessary and I thank those brave men and women for their service. However, there is nothing to stop the federal government from reinstating the draft should it become necessary.
If interpretation of the amendment as written is really to be the basis of an attempt to restrict the availability of firearms in this country, we should not be examining who our forefathers intended to be able to keep and bear these arms. After all, the amendment states that it is a right of the people, not the militia. Instead, we should be looking at the term "arms." Since I first examined the second amendment and gun control as an assignment for 10th grade English, I noticed a very easy way to outlaw guns entirely and I've yet to hear of anyone come to my same conclusion.
Back in 1787 when this amendment was written, The most sophisticated firearm was the musket. Perhaps there were a few early rifles, but the musket was the standard rifle that most people would be familiar with. Not only did this thing take about a minute to load and fire, it was also extremely inaccurate. Back in those days it wasn't very likely that some thug would walk into Horton Dundershire's Fine Liquor Shoppe and demand the proprietor empty the contents of the till. As you can imagine, concealing a musket is next to impossible, and though pistols did exist, their short barrels made them even less accurate than the muskets. I'm sure this portion of my argument has been made before. Guns back then were slow and inaccurate and despite the brilliance of our forefathers, they had no way to know that in a few hundred years a person would accurately be able to fire thirty rounds a second.
What I was hoping to see on that ticker was that someone had finally noticed that nowhere in the second amendment does it mention that American citizens have the right to keep and bear firearms. It simply states arms. When I saw this back in 10th grade, outlawing guns became instantly simple. Congress passes a law that bans any civilian from owning a firearm. After that, people can buy all the swords, knives, crossbows, flails, maces, axes, and catapults they want. Sorry Johnny America, Your constitution doesn't say you can have guns. It doesn't say you have the right to be armed with sophisticated or contemporary weapons. Just that you have the right to arm yourself somehow. As long as you are able to do that, the second amendment stays intact. Heck, if the government wanted to, they could outlaw everything except spears and shields. It'll suck for the gun nuts, but the person who wants to stab some perceived enemy combatant in the chest and scream "THIS IS AMERICA!" can still make his dreams come true.
This came out a lot longer than I expected. Thanks if you read the whole thing. I think I'll head out now. Perhaps start practicing with my atlatl.
I forget what I was watching today. It was some youtube clip from fox news. Probably Hannity & Combs or something, but that much is irrelevant. On the ticker at the bottom of the screen was a story about someone being shot (big surprise) and the possibility of using the wording of the second amendment in an attempt to create stricter gun control laws.
Somewhat shocked that attempts were still being made to abide by the constitution, and unimpressed by the shouting match on the rest of the screen, I read on. As written the second amendment 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." The argument that was being made was that because of this wording, The United states could restrict guns from everyone who is not a member of their state militia. However appealing this proposal may seem to your redneck registered gun nut psycho, it won't work. Restricting arms to the militia would actually do very little to restrict arms. This is because, by definition, The United States militia consists of all able bodied males between the ages of 17 and 45. This is how we once had a draft, and potentially could again. The law hasn't changed. The numbers of volunteer servicemen and women have been high enough to presently make a draft unnecessary and I thank those brave men and women for their service. However, there is nothing to stop the federal government from reinstating the draft should it become necessary.
If interpretation of the amendment as written is really to be the basis of an attempt to restrict the availability of firearms in this country, we should not be examining who our forefathers intended to be able to keep and bear these arms. After all, the amendment states that it is a right of the people, not the militia. Instead, we should be looking at the term "arms." Since I first examined the second amendment and gun control as an assignment for 10th grade English, I noticed a very easy way to outlaw guns entirely and I've yet to hear of anyone come to my same conclusion.
Back in 1787 when this amendment was written, The most sophisticated firearm was the musket. Perhaps there were a few early rifles, but the musket was the standard rifle that most people would be familiar with. Not only did this thing take about a minute to load and fire, it was also extremely inaccurate. Back in those days it wasn't very likely that some thug would walk into Horton Dundershire's Fine Liquor Shoppe and demand the proprietor empty the contents of the till. As you can imagine, concealing a musket is next to impossible, and though pistols did exist, their short barrels made them even less accurate than the muskets. I'm sure this portion of my argument has been made before. Guns back then were slow and inaccurate and despite the brilliance of our forefathers, they had no way to know that in a few hundred years a person would accurately be able to fire thirty rounds a second.
What I was hoping to see on that ticker was that someone had finally noticed that nowhere in the second amendment does it mention that American citizens have the right to keep and bear firearms. It simply states arms. When I saw this back in 10th grade, outlawing guns became instantly simple. Congress passes a law that bans any civilian from owning a firearm. After that, people can buy all the swords, knives, crossbows, flails, maces, axes, and catapults they want. Sorry Johnny America, Your constitution doesn't say you can have guns. It doesn't say you have the right to be armed with sophisticated or contemporary weapons. Just that you have the right to arm yourself somehow. As long as you are able to do that, the second amendment stays intact. Heck, if the government wanted to, they could outlaw everything except spears and shields. It'll suck for the gun nuts, but the person who wants to stab some perceived enemy combatant in the chest and scream "THIS IS AMERICA!" can still make his dreams come true.
This came out a lot longer than I expected. Thanks if you read the whole thing. I think I'll head out now. Perhaps start practicing with my atlatl.
