Right to Own Or Use a Gun
Nick Parker
Issue date: 2/24/05 Section: Opinion
"A well regimented military, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bare arms, shall not be infringed."
The second amendment to the United States constitution is quite easily interpreted as the right to own or use a gun. This amendment was made at a time when America's independence was a hotly contested topic. The forces of Great Britain were assaulting the country, attempting to take back what they believed was their property. America needed defenses.
Let's flash forward to the year 2005. It is now over 200 years later, and we've been debating the validity of the aforementioned amendment for just about the entire time. We've had bans and brawls, but no finite answer to the questions surrounding gun control.
San Francisco has proposed a ban on all handguns within homes or businesses. It also prohibits the sale, manufacture or distribution of ammunition or firearms.
Many gun control critics claim that only the lawfully minded will be affected, and that criminals will find a gun if they really want one.
This, along with the recent lifting of the assault weapons ban in Utah, has brought up controversies that have gun control proponents and opponents up in arms.
My position on this issue is a divided one. Guns in America are like Weird Al Yankovic at the Grammys: Sure they're invited, but should they really be there? They're constitutionally protected, which is hard to mess with. They are considered a right, and since many of our civil liberties are similarly given through this almost sacred document, firearms should be treated as any other right. Logically, though, and without a second thought of historical significance or American policy, guns in the sense of humanity are not necessary. We don't need them for hunting and we wouldn't need them for defense if no one else had them. The law enforcement industry wouldn't need to rely so heavily on the weapons if criminals weren't similarly equipped.
Shooting for sport is pretty much the only thing I would see as being a culpable excuse for owning a gun. Even in the recreational sense, an Uzi or an M16 wouldn't be necessary.
Of course the banning of handguns, high-powered rifles and assault weapons wouldn't put a complete end to violence, but it's a good start, and perhaps we should give it a little thought. Some day it may be you at the other end of a pistol, hoping that you could get to your wallet faster and wishing that we didn't allow those types of weapons in our country.
The second amendment to the United States constitution is quite easily interpreted as the right to own or use a gun. This amendment was made at a time when America's independence was a hotly contested topic. The forces of Great Britain were assaulting the country, attempting to take back what they believed was their property. America needed defenses.
Let's flash forward to the year 2005. It is now over 200 years later, and we've been debating the validity of the aforementioned amendment for just about the entire time. We've had bans and brawls, but no finite answer to the questions surrounding gun control.
San Francisco has proposed a ban on all handguns within homes or businesses. It also prohibits the sale, manufacture or distribution of ammunition or firearms.
Many gun control critics claim that only the lawfully minded will be affected, and that criminals will find a gun if they really want one.
This, along with the recent lifting of the assault weapons ban in Utah, has brought up controversies that have gun control proponents and opponents up in arms.
My position on this issue is a divided one. Guns in America are like Weird Al Yankovic at the Grammys: Sure they're invited, but should they really be there? They're constitutionally protected, which is hard to mess with. They are considered a right, and since many of our civil liberties are similarly given through this almost sacred document, firearms should be treated as any other right. Logically, though, and without a second thought of historical significance or American policy, guns in the sense of humanity are not necessary. We don't need them for hunting and we wouldn't need them for defense if no one else had them. The law enforcement industry wouldn't need to rely so heavily on the weapons if criminals weren't similarly equipped.
Shooting for sport is pretty much the only thing I would see as being a culpable excuse for owning a gun. Even in the recreational sense, an Uzi or an M16 wouldn't be necessary.
Of course the banning of handguns, high-powered rifles and assault weapons wouldn't put a complete end to violence, but it's a good start, and perhaps we should give it a little thought. Some day it may be you at the other end of a pistol, hoping that you could get to your wallet faster and wishing that we didn't allow those types of weapons in our country.
