BYU NewsNet - Opposing Viewpoints: The Second Amendment

College Republicans: the right of the people

By Scott Wooston

"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." Perhaps the most controversial and debated words in all of the founding documents of the United States, the Second Amendment of the Constitution secures the right for American citizens to own guns. In recent decades, this right has come under attack from every angle and for every reason imaginable. For one reason or another, there are those who would have you believe that an unarmed America is safer than an armed America.

One of the tactics often used against the right to bear arms is changing whose rights the Second Amendment is securing. They say it secures the right of the militia, or the government, to bear arms. In other words, it secures the right of the government, not the right of the people. This is ridiculous because every other amendment in the Bill of Rights secures individual rights. The Supreme Court recently struck down this argument in D.C. v. Heller when it stated, "The Second Amendment protects an individual's right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home." This decision is in agreement with what the Founding Fathers had to say on the topic. Richard Henry Lee stated, "A militia, when properly formed, is in fact the people themselves. They include all men capable of bearing arms. To preserve liberty is essential that the whole body of people always possess arms and be taught alike how to use them." George Mason said, "I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people."

There are others who would argue that it is necessary to deprive the people of the right to bear arms as a means to controlling crime. This is the reasoning behind laws such as the Chicago gun ban and the now defunct D.C. gun ban. Statistics have consistently shown that areas of high gun ownership have lower incidents of violent crime. Thomas Jefferson understood this when he stated, "Laws that forbid the carrying of arms disarm only those who are neither inclined, nor determined to commit crimes. Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants. They serve rather to encourage than prevent homicides for an unarmed man, may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man." The modern version of this would be "when guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns."

The Founders recognized private ownership of firearms as one of the best methods for securing the liberty of the people. George Mason again said, "To disarm the people is the best and most effectual way to enslave them." Thomas Jefferson stated, "Those who hammer their guns into plowshares will plow for those who do not." George Washington, the father of our country, said, "Firearms stand next in importance to the Constitution itself. They are the American people's liberty, teeth and keystone under independence ... from the hour the Pilgrims landed to the present day, events, occurrences and tendencies prove that to ensure peace, security and happiness, the rifle and pistol are equally indispensable ... the very atmosphere of firearms anywhere restrains evil interference. They deserve a place of honor with all that's good." Washington's use of the word keystone should hold special significance for members of the church. It is clear that the Founders placed the Second Amendment into the Bill of Rights so we could secure our liberty. The motives of anyone or thing which tries to take away that right should be questioned and examined with distrust.

In the Federalist Papers, James Hamilton stated, "(The Constitution preserves) the advantage of being armed, which Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation ... (where) the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms." Why would he use the word trust? Because ultimately, armed citizens are the final check on government power. Without arms, the original colonies would have never been able to fight off an oppressive government. The individual right to keep and bear arms means that we will always have the means to defend our Freedom.

College Democrats: Common sense on gun control

By Randal Serr

The Second Amendment guarantees Americans a right to bear arms. That right should and must be upheld, but no constitutional right is absolute. Rather, constitutional rights have to be balanced against other rights. Many Second Amendment fundamentalists seem to forget this point. Americans have every good reason to keep guns out of the hands of those that would do harm to others or abuse the right to bear arms. It is also important to keep in mind that when the Founding Fathers wrote the Constitution there was no such thing as a .50 caliber M2 machine gun. (I did not just know that off the top of my head. I Googled).

Context also matters. We must be able to differentiate the situation in Cheyenne, Wyo., from the situation in inner city Los Angeles. Different constituents will demand different laws, and rightly so since the demographics and traditions are so varied. We need to recognize the reality of the tradition of hunting in rural areas, such as the one in southern Idaho I grew up in and conversely, the reality that people are getting killed in the streets in urban areas throughout the country. We often talk about paying the price for our freedoms. Well, firearm ownership exacts a high price. According to the Department of Health and Human Services, in 2005 there were 30,694 firearm deaths in the United States. The Salt Lake Tribune reported from a government study that "The United States has by far the highest rate of gun deaths - murders, suicides and accidents - among the world's 36 richest nations." The same study showed that in 1994, of the 36 richest countries in the world, there were 88,649 gun deaths. The United States accounted for nearly half of these. It goes (almost) without saying that many of these people were innocent victims. For them, the price of our freedom was the ultimate one.

Barack Obama has made clear that an individual right to bear arms does not mean that the state or federal government cannot constrain that right. Again, this should shock no one who understands how the law works. Take zoning ordinances. We all have a right to private property, but the government may determine how to use it in certain circumstances, provided that it does so legally and openly.

By extension, we can legally and openly trace guns that have been misused to gun dealers, where it often turns out that the dealer was not acting according to the law. We can put bans on certain guns that have no practical use other than to do harm and even to kill. Even many NRA members are disgusted by "street sweeper" shotguns, illegally modified full automatic weapons, and armor-penetrating bullets. The NRA should stop defending this nonsense. In 2006, in the south side of Chicago alone there were 34 gun deaths of public school children. It is true that if somebody in the inner city shoots people up for petty reasons that the government may not be able to fix that, but it is also true that with reasonable gun control, we could help prevent those kind of situations. Barack Obama has stated, "what we can do is to provide just some common-sense enforcement. The efforts by law enforcement to obtain the information required to trace back guns that have been used in crimes to unscrupulous gun dealers. As president, I intend to make it happen. ... We can reconcile ... by making sure the Second Amendment is respected and that people are able to lawfully own guns, but that we also start cracking down on the kinds of abuses of firearms that we see on the streets."

We may disagree on exactly how much gun control there should be, but we can surely agree that this number can be reduced through fair government regulation in order to stop that kind of killing. We can establish common-sense safety measures to ensure that law-abiding citizens can enjoy their right to bear arms while at the same time keeping guns out of the hands of those that should not have them.