By Sam Loose | USA
A total of 73% percent of Americans believe that the second amendment ensures every American the right to own firearms. However, despite this consensus a war against firearms is being waged by the media and the government, frequently citing mass shootings as a valid reason to restrict and or abolish said right. Such the case is true in California where on January 1st, 2018, a new string of harsh restrictions on ammunition and capacity will take effect. But California is not alone in their crusade, countless other states have lobbied for similar laws, but like California, their battles against the right to bear arms consist of statistical inaccuracies, logical fallacies, and a gross misunderstanding of the constitution.
The wording of the Second Amendment is commonly referred to as the most debated section of the Constitution; this is true in both a historical and modern context.The second amendment reads as follows “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.” At the time the constitution was created, the founding fathers scuffled over the exact wording, as it would be necessary to secure future generations a right to bear arms.
The debate continues over this issue, however it is the wording that has triggered debate. The word militia has lead some to believe that the Second Amendment only applies to state militias; this interpretation is simply not true. There are several reasons why such an interpretation is not valid such as article one, section eight, clause fifteen of the United States constitution giving congress the power to raise militias, or the string of militia acts defining the militia as adult american citizens, and the Amendment itself only guarantees the right to “the people”.
But even if such an interpretation was true, it would not guarantee the government the right to confiscate firearms: in the case of the Second Amendment “A well regulated Militia” would be considered the justification clause and “the right of the people to keep and bear arms” meaning; while justified in the case of arming militias, the right to bear arms is still guaranteed.
Furthermore, in an attempt to bolster the argument for gun control, some may argue something along the lines of “the Second Amendment was written well before the appearance of assault weapons, therefore the Second Amendment only applies to muskets.” This is both historically and legally invalid. Both machine guns and assault rifles not only existed at the time of the framing of the Second Amendment; but the founding fathers recognized and attempted to arm the united states with these weapons. Finally nowhere in the constitution does text exist establishing a regulation of firearms to only muskets; effectively rendering such an argument invalid.
The right to Bear Arms is indispensable to a self governing nation, it disbands the state’s monopoly of power, without it a revolution against the tyrannical english crown would have been impossible. It is the duty of every American to preserve their right to defend Life, Liberty, and Property.