Spring Break
EILEEN SMOLYAR: Safety should trump the abstract right to own guns
by Eileen Smolyar
Columnists | 4/24/07
Posted online at 1:03 AM EST on 4/24/07
/ Last updated at 4:58 PM EST on 4/24/07
Have you bought a gun yet? According to the second amendment, all citizens have the right to bear arms: "…The right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."
Pro-gun ownership activists hold this section of the amendment as scripture. However, it is only the second half of the amendment, and is proceeded by the phrase "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State."
Given the fact that Britain has not posed a threat to our nation almost 200 years, and that the threat of foreign invasion in general is quite slim, does the second amendment really apply the way in which it was originally intended, especially since the muskets and firearms in the 18th-century were not as accessible, portable, or lethal as artillery used today?
Though Americans are divided over the extent to which a citizen should have the right to arm himself we can learn from the recent gun-related tragedies, such as the Columbine High School massacre in 1999, the Washington sniper shootings in 2002, and last week's Virginia Polytechnic Institute shootings, what happens when individuals arm themselves. These violent attacks can point us in the right direction-towards sensible gun control policies.
In the book Private Guns: Public Health, David Hemenway underlines the fact that this country's gun ownership culture has become less about actually using firearms and simply more of an obsession with upholding a constitutional right. "The United States continues to have by far the largest number of privately owned firearms in the developed world, almost 300 million, about one for every man, woman, and child," despite the fact that it is very unlikely that Americans truly need so many more guns than other countries have. Gun ownership has become the goal rather than a means to security. With a rise in gun-related accidents and fatalities, the question arises: Are we buying guns in order to shield ourselves, or should we really be shielded from guns?
Pro-gun ownership activists hold this section of the amendment as scripture. However, it is only the second half of the amendment, and is proceeded by the phrase "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State."
Given the fact that Britain has not posed a threat to our nation almost 200 years, and that the threat of foreign invasion in general is quite slim, does the second amendment really apply the way in which it was originally intended, especially since the muskets and firearms in the 18th-century were not as accessible, portable, or lethal as artillery used today?
Though Americans are divided over the extent to which a citizen should have the right to arm himself we can learn from the recent gun-related tragedies, such as the Columbine High School massacre in 1999, the Washington sniper shootings in 2002, and last week's Virginia Polytechnic Institute shootings, what happens when individuals arm themselves. These violent attacks can point us in the right direction-towards sensible gun control policies.
In the book Private Guns: Public Health, David Hemenway underlines the fact that this country's gun ownership culture has become less about actually using firearms and simply more of an obsession with upholding a constitutional right. "The United States continues to have by far the largest number of privately owned firearms in the developed world, almost 300 million, about one for every man, woman, and child," despite the fact that it is very unlikely that Americans truly need so many more guns than other countries have. Gun ownership has become the goal rather than a means to security. With a rise in gun-related accidents and fatalities, the question arises: Are we buying guns in order to shield ourselves, or should we really be shielded from guns?
Viewing Comments 1 - 10 of 13
James Sanders
posted 4/24/07 @ 2:03 PM EST
Is setting conditions for gun ownership considered infringement?
Would stricter laws prevented VTech shootings?
I think that gun laws only disarm the innocent since the dangerous people of society can and still will get guns illegally. (Continued…)
susan
posted 4/24/07 @ 11:49 PM EST
How could the first amemdment possibly apply to electronic media such as TV and the Internet, when those devices weren't even considered when the Amendment was adopted? Certainly the founders were thinking about printing presses, not the ability to send a million email messages with one click of the finger. (Continued…)
John Thayer
posted 4/25/07 @ 4:48 AM EST
Fair enough, Eileen. I'll "submit" my gun rights to the same rules you submit to in exercising your First Amendment rights to publish the above article. (Continued…)
Richard D.
posted 4/25/07 @ 7:48 AM EST
I'll just quote a few 'extremists':
"The said Constitution be never construed to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms. (Continued…)
Doug Smith
posted 4/25/07 @ 10:51 AM EST
Statist tripe such as this accompanying such a tragedy as VA Tech is incredibly offensive. The campus had infringed on the right of its students, staff, and faculty to bear arms in their own defense, and created fertile soil for such a massacre. (Continued…)
K. Kelley
posted 4/25/07 @ 11:16 AM EST
"Given the fact that Britain has not posed a threat to our nation almost 200 years, and that the threat of foreign invasion in general is quite slim.. (Continued…)
arthur
posted 4/25/07 @ 12:01 PM EST
1. Obviously, with 300 million guns present, guns are not the problem.
2. With 300 milion cars present, accounting for 10 times as many annual deaths, why not propose banning them as well? Because we know that merely owning a car does not mean you are going to drive it through your high school band parade killing and maiming; same thing with guns. (Continued…)
BlackKnight86
posted 4/25/07 @ 2:38 PM EST
"Safety" is an abstract concept. "The right to keep and bear arms" is a concrete one. Logically, an abstract concept cannot be used to even argue against a concrete one, much less "trump" it. (Continued…)
L Bryant
posted 4/25/07 @ 4:00 PM EST
What does the Long Island RR, Luby's, Columbine, World Trade Center Tower 1, World Trade Center Tower 2, The Pentagon, a peaceful field in Penn. & VT all have in common? In each and every case if our God given (not government granted) right to self defense had been not been infringed by the governments), a single lawfully armed and willing person with a single well placed round would have made a difference to well over 3000 souls. (Continued…)
Carl Hickman
posted 4/25/07 @ 8:15 PM EST
Gun control simply does not provide the benefits touted by its promoters. Japan has some of the most restrictive gun laws in the world, yet has one of the highest suicide rates in the world. (Continued…)
Post a Comment