The Second Amendment Debate

January 21, 2013 

 

The Second Amendment to the United States Constitution states:

 

“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.”

 

Over the years, there has been a great deal of serious debate over the use of the Second Amendment and what it means to the United States and its citizens.  Since the shooting at a movie theater in Aurora, Colorado, I found myself actively participating in the debate.  I didn’t participate because I wanted guns to be eliminated or because I thought everyone should have a gun or two.  I participated because I couldn’t understand why it was such a difficult issue for people to agree upon and I wanted to find out why that was.

 

As I began to have discussions about the Second Amendment and the rights it bestowed upon us, I learned that there are very strong feelings at both extremes of the issue and that the feelings of people between those extremes have been heightened since the senseless killing of twenty first grade students and six of their educators.

 

I find there are those who have never touched a gun that believe guns have no place at all in modern society.  On the other hand, there are those that find guns to be such enjoyable toys they don’t think anyone should have the right to legislate their ability to have fun.   The vast majority of Americans, however, fall somewhere in between.  It is those Americans that fall in between with whom I’d like to share my findings.

 

Background of the Author

 

So, who am I and what do I bring to this debate?

 

I am a 48-year-old, center-leaning Republican male who was born and raised on a farm not far from Albany, New York.  In my experience, guns were a significant part of farm life.  Woodchucks burrowed holes in fields, which could cause damage to equipment as well as to livestock.  Large flocks of birds could destroy crops in an instant.  It was often considered necessary to use guns to protect the farm from those threats and others.  By the time I was in my early teens, I had become quite familiar with .22 caliber rifles and handguns as well as 20-gauge shotguns.

 

As a pilot in the United States Navy, I rarely had a need for personal weapons since I was always in the company of well-armed ships and aircraft.  However, there were times when I was required to fly highly sensitive weaponry from one storage location to another and those of us involved were each required to carry a .45 caliber pistol to protect the weaponry.  Before we could carry the weapons, however, we had to train and qualify with those weapons.

 

After nine years of service with the Navy, I became a badge-carrying law enforcer.  To prepare for my duties, I spent numerous hours a week for many weeks becoming proficient in the use of the gun I would carry with me every day as well as a few “long guns” that would be used for certain missions.  I have also been a member of a SWAT team where I became proficient in the use of both military assault weapons and sniper rifles.

 

“the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed”

 

What are “arms”?  I think that is the key question in the Second Amendment debates of today.  By the end of World War II, the United States and the Soviet Union were locked into a nuclear arms race.  So, are nuclear arms part of the Second Amendment intent of “the right of the people to keep and bear arms”?  How about main battle tanks used on the battlefield?  Or, perhaps Stinger missiles?  We can’t ask these questions of our Founding Fathers because they would have no idea what we were talking about.

 

Take a look at the following illustration of the types of “arms” for which we are familiar, to help us to better understand the full scope of the Second Amendment debate we seem to be locked into:

 

- Nuclear arms

- Vehicle bombs

- Main Battle Tanks

- Stinger missiles

- Howitzers/Canons

- Pipe bombs

- Hand grenades

 -Land mines

- Fully automatic rifles

- Semi-automatic rifles

- Semi-automatic handguns

- Six-shot revolvers

- Muskets with bayonets

- Muskets without bayonets

- Swords and sabres

- Knives

 

In the numerous discussions I have had over the past few months, both in person and via social media, I have found not a single person who seems to believe the Second Amendment should be used to allow citizens to keep and bear any and all types of arms.  Therefore, it appears to me that there is universal agreement that the Second Amendment doesn’t provide carte-blanche rights for citizens to choose any arms they desire from the list above.  My conclusion, then, about the Second Amendment debate is that the different sides of the debate are trying to decide where the line should be drawn and not if a line should be drawn.  From what I’m seeing and hearing, it would seem that “semi-automatic rifles” is the sticking point.  Should they be acceptable weapons of choice for our citizens or should they not.  I don’t hear anyone arguing that “semi-automatic handguns” should be banned or that “fully-automatic rifles” should be allowed.

 

The Real Debate

 

Unless I have missed something, the question that the United States Government needs to answer about the Second Amendment is where should the line be drawn?  It is not a question of “should a line be drawn?”  Absolutely, a line must be drawn! So, should it be before “semi-automatic rifles” or after “semi-automatic rifles”?  To answer this question, I ask, “What Second Amendment purpose does a ‘semi-automatic rifle’ serve that the remainder of the list can’t serve?”  The same format used for this discussion about what type of “arms” should be allowed could easily be applied to a discussion about magazine sizes and background checks, but that is beyond the scope of my research.

 

When talking about violence in America, mental health issues, violence in entertainment (movies, TV, and video games), and a variety of other factors need to be discussed.  However, those issues have nothing to do with the Second Amendment and it is inappropriate to allow them to contaminate the debate about the Second Amendment.