Malice
Member
My English Composition II class in college is titled "Writing Arguments."
This is my final paper for the class and I wanted to share it with you all and see if anyone had any input.
The cool thing is, if it is good enough it will be published in the textbook next year, which is good because as of now the book has no topics on gun control.
All Americans Deserve the Rights Guaranteed to Them in the Bill of Rights
There is a perplexing, ongoing debate in the United States about what the text of the Second Amendment means, how it should be interpreted, and how it should be applied. The reason this is perplexing is because the Second Amendment could not be clearer. And for those who need clarification, it has been re-stated numerous times by the courts as well as most recently, departments of the federal government. The uncanny thing is, many individuals still refute this. What is worse, many state and local governments completely ignore it, and deny the most basic of rights to the people who reside in such states. Due to the overwhelming logical and legal evidence, further legislation restricting the rights of Americans to keep and bear arms (RKBA) should be abandoned, and the rights that most Americans enjoy should be guaranteed to residents of all states and localities.
This is the essence of the problem. The most important part of the RKBA argument is the simple fact that 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 (U.S. Constitution, Amendment 2).”
Furthermore, RKBA issues have come before the Supreme Court several times. While the courts tend to skirt the issue, they have given us one important defining principle to go with. In the case U.S. vs. Miller, the court decided that the National Firearms Act that restricted sawed off shotguns and destructive devices was in fact constitutional (US vs. Miller). Their rationale was that since such weapons did not lend themselves to the upkeep of an effective, yet reasonable militia, restricting them did not infringe on the right outlined in the Second Amendment. So by logical progression, we find ourselves at a point. The right to keep and bear arms is a federally guaranteed right. So, a federal law pertaining to this right is valid as long as federal courts deem it is indeed constitutional. A federal law was passed restricting the possession of sawed of shotguns, short barreled rifles, full autos, and destructive devices, and found to be constitutional. Thus, Americans have the right to keep and bear all arms not restricted by that law as long as they are not known criminal threats to society, or determined mentally deficient by the courts.
In addition to this decision, in 2004 the Department of Justice and Attorney General’s office issued its official stance on RKBA. In a 35,000 word-long report, the department outlined it’s stance on RKBA and supporting reasons. Its conclusion was “we conclude that the Second Amendment secures an individual right to keep and to bear arms” (DOJ Conclusion). The report emphasizes that there is no legal or historical evidence to suggest that the second amendment is meant to define a “collective right,” and is entirely an individual right. So where does that leave us? The right to keep and bear arms, providing one is not a felon or mentally unfit, and providing the arms in question are not restricted by the NFA act, is an individual right guaranteed to Americans. This right if further reinforced by the federal government’s chief litigators.
Where does this in turn lead us? This leads us to the Fourteenth Amendment which in part states: “No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States” (US Constitution, Amendment 14). What this provision basically guarantees is that state and local governments cannot keep any citizen that happens to reside in their jurisdiction from exercising the rights granted to them by the U.S. Constitution. This amendment has been cited most famously to guarantee the rights of African Americans in the post-Civil War south. States cannot deny people in their jurisdictions to vote, because it is granted by the Constitution. The same principal applies to the right to speak one’s mind freely, the right to own property, etc. Fortunately, this applies to the right to keep and bear arms, too. It is a constitutional right, so it should be obvious that states cannot deny this right to residents.
But they do, and in spades. A slew of states have laws restricting the types of weapons one can own, or they erect hoops to jump through in order to gain “permission” to own a gun. Some states and cities guilty of this include California, Maryland, New Jersey, Chicago and New York State and City. In fact, San Francisco recently went so far as to ban all handguns in the city and forbid residents from owning one in the city(Washington Post). Even though the right to keep and bear arms is recognized as a basic American right, and most Americans enjoy this right, the residents of San Francisco do not. Some state and local governments have denied this right to their residents, even though the Fourteenth Amendment forbids this. It is not right, because Americans who happen to live in these places deserve the same rights as all Americans.
Of course there are many opponents to this idea. Opponents argue that since the text refers to the militia, then regular people do not have the right to have guns. It says militia, so that means the National Guard, police, and so forth. First of all, this argument refuses to notice that there was no National Guard at the time. In fact, the militia “…consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age…” according to United States law (US Code Section 311). This opposing view also expects one to believe that phrase “the people,” means individuals approved by the government in this instance, but the same phrase means all American citizens in every other instance in the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution, and the Bill of Rights. It holds no water.
Probably the most common position taken to refute this idea is that if the people in California ban certain guns or heavily restrict gun ownership in general, it is ok because they voted on it, and want it. This however is an issue of majority rule and minority rights. It is the right of Americans to keep and possess arms as defined by the Constitution and Supreme Court, so no matter how much the majority of Chicagoans want to ban all guns, they cannot. It infringes on the Constitutional rights of those who do not want them banned. It is perfectly parallel to other issues. No matter how much the vast majority of Americans would like to make it so the KKK cannot propagate hate speech, it is their right to do so. If a small, conservative, Christian town wants to ban Islam because they feel it is a threat to their community, is it ok for them to do so, as long as they vote on it. Of course not! Freedom of religion is guaranteed to all Americans in the First Amendment, just as RKBA is in the Second. In terms of American rights, there is no difference between these situations and the situation we have in San Francisco and Chicago.
Outside of the real issue that the Second Amendment applies to all the state and local governments in the U.S., many opponents take issue with firearms themselves. Opponents of RKBA often include police officers and victims of gun violence. From this perspective, or the perspective of any reasonable person, it is beneficial to keep guns out of the hands of criminals. The problem with banning handguns or “assault” rifles is that these measures simply do not, and cannot work. Banning handguns only affects those inclined to obey laws in the first place. Drug dealers, muggers, robbers, and the like are no more likely to obey such a restriction than they are to obey laws against assault or breaking and entering. The only people that these laws truly affect are law abiding citizens; the vast majority of gun owners. A handgun ban affects competition shooters, those who are inclined to keep a handgun in the home or business, or those inclined to obtain a license to carry a concealed handgun. Criminals, by their very nature, ignore laws like this. An example is Washington D.C., which is the murder capitol of the nation and has one of the highest murder rates in the world despite their total ban on both handguns and almost all firearms (Safe Streets). Instead, RKBA supporters suggest tougher penalties for violent criminals and eliminating the “revolving door syndrome” that plagues the U.S. prison system. Another thing RKBA supporters promote is the idea that more firearms in the hands of responsible citizens could result in less crime. An example is Florida, which has both libertarian gun laws and is famous for allowing its residents to use them for self defense (Post). A criminal in Florida has a high chance of being encountering armed resistance among his victims. A criminal in San Francisco knows he has almost no chance of meeting armed resistance. Where do you think a criminal would rather be? This is the common sense approach that is so often left out of the debate.
Another approach RKBA opponents take is to suggest that handguns and “assault” weapons serve no useful purpose. To someone who does not “like” or own guns, this seems reasonable. But gun owners know there are many useful purposes for all guns, including such “dangerous weapons” as “AK-47’s.” What more useful purpose could any object serve than to protect ones life, property, and family? Beyond this often attacked use, hunting is an obvious example, but there are more. Olympic competition shooting is a good example. There is also practical pistol shooting, as well as defensive pistol shooting competitions. These competitions require handguns with standard capacity magazines. This means that they usually hold more than ten rounds, and these types of guns are constantly under attack by anti-gun elements. There are also high power rifle competitions which require civilian versions of military weapons (also under attack) to hit multiple targets at long distances and with impressive speed. There is also the 3-gun competition which requires use of a handgun (with more than 10 rounds), shotgun, and rifle. A typical rifle for this competition would be a civilian-legal, semi-automatic version of the U.S. military M16, or a rifle based on the Kalashnikov design (commonly referred to by the anti-gun crowd as “an AK-47 assault rifle”). These and other activities are hosted all over the country by RKBA groups like the NRA as well as private and public gun clubs, and enjoyed by people of every race, age, and sex. In addition to all this, some of the most outspoken leaders of the anti-gun interest apparently see a use for firearms. Anti-gun politicians and celebrities hire bodyguards armed with weapons that are illegal for “regular” people to own in their states and use taxpayer money to have police guard their homes and workplaces. Not all Americans have the power, wealth, and influence to procure this kind of protection. Fortunately, the Second Amendment guarantees them the right to provide it for themselves.
This issue need not be complicated with these debates however. Proponents of gun control will, for the foreseeable future, be at odds with those who wish to be able to freely posses arms in the United States. The issue of firearms in society is a very personal one which is almost always dictated by emotion, belief, upbringing, and perhaps even gut instinct. However, the right to keep and bear arms is an individual, Constitutional right. This has been reaffirmed by the federal government and the Supreme Court. These are the bodies that have jurisdiction in this arena. Even though many people may not agree with the very idea of individual citizens having firearms, this fact still stands. As such, it is largely inconsequential that some individuals do not agree with it. Gun control supporters must lobby on a federal level for an amendment to the Constitution if they wish to see the RKBA landscape in the United States changed. Mayors, city councilmen, and even state legislatures have no business restricting the civil rights of Americans in their limited jurisdictions on a piecemeal basis. American citizens, whether they live in Texas or California, deserve the rights guaranteed to them by the Bill of Rights. Anything less is an affront to justice, integrity, and the very fabric of the Republic.
This is my final paper for the class and I wanted to share it with you all and see if anyone had any input.
The cool thing is, if it is good enough it will be published in the textbook next year, which is good because as of now the book has no topics on gun control.
All Americans Deserve the Rights Guaranteed to Them in the Bill of Rights
There is a perplexing, ongoing debate in the United States about what the text of the Second Amendment means, how it should be interpreted, and how it should be applied. The reason this is perplexing is because the Second Amendment could not be clearer. And for those who need clarification, it has been re-stated numerous times by the courts as well as most recently, departments of the federal government. The uncanny thing is, many individuals still refute this. What is worse, many state and local governments completely ignore it, and deny the most basic of rights to the people who reside in such states. Due to the overwhelming logical and legal evidence, further legislation restricting the rights of Americans to keep and bear arms (RKBA) should be abandoned, and the rights that most Americans enjoy should be guaranteed to residents of all states and localities.
This is the essence of the problem. The most important part of the RKBA argument is the simple fact that 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 (U.S. Constitution, Amendment 2).”
Furthermore, RKBA issues have come before the Supreme Court several times. While the courts tend to skirt the issue, they have given us one important defining principle to go with. In the case U.S. vs. Miller, the court decided that the National Firearms Act that restricted sawed off shotguns and destructive devices was in fact constitutional (US vs. Miller). Their rationale was that since such weapons did not lend themselves to the upkeep of an effective, yet reasonable militia, restricting them did not infringe on the right outlined in the Second Amendment. So by logical progression, we find ourselves at a point. The right to keep and bear arms is a federally guaranteed right. So, a federal law pertaining to this right is valid as long as federal courts deem it is indeed constitutional. A federal law was passed restricting the possession of sawed of shotguns, short barreled rifles, full autos, and destructive devices, and found to be constitutional. Thus, Americans have the right to keep and bear all arms not restricted by that law as long as they are not known criminal threats to society, or determined mentally deficient by the courts.
In addition to this decision, in 2004 the Department of Justice and Attorney General’s office issued its official stance on RKBA. In a 35,000 word-long report, the department outlined it’s stance on RKBA and supporting reasons. Its conclusion was “we conclude that the Second Amendment secures an individual right to keep and to bear arms” (DOJ Conclusion). The report emphasizes that there is no legal or historical evidence to suggest that the second amendment is meant to define a “collective right,” and is entirely an individual right. So where does that leave us? The right to keep and bear arms, providing one is not a felon or mentally unfit, and providing the arms in question are not restricted by the NFA act, is an individual right guaranteed to Americans. This right if further reinforced by the federal government’s chief litigators.
Where does this in turn lead us? This leads us to the Fourteenth Amendment which in part states: “No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States” (US Constitution, Amendment 14). What this provision basically guarantees is that state and local governments cannot keep any citizen that happens to reside in their jurisdiction from exercising the rights granted to them by the U.S. Constitution. This amendment has been cited most famously to guarantee the rights of African Americans in the post-Civil War south. States cannot deny people in their jurisdictions to vote, because it is granted by the Constitution. The same principal applies to the right to speak one’s mind freely, the right to own property, etc. Fortunately, this applies to the right to keep and bear arms, too. It is a constitutional right, so it should be obvious that states cannot deny this right to residents.
But they do, and in spades. A slew of states have laws restricting the types of weapons one can own, or they erect hoops to jump through in order to gain “permission” to own a gun. Some states and cities guilty of this include California, Maryland, New Jersey, Chicago and New York State and City. In fact, San Francisco recently went so far as to ban all handguns in the city and forbid residents from owning one in the city(Washington Post). Even though the right to keep and bear arms is recognized as a basic American right, and most Americans enjoy this right, the residents of San Francisco do not. Some state and local governments have denied this right to their residents, even though the Fourteenth Amendment forbids this. It is not right, because Americans who happen to live in these places deserve the same rights as all Americans.
Of course there are many opponents to this idea. Opponents argue that since the text refers to the militia, then regular people do not have the right to have guns. It says militia, so that means the National Guard, police, and so forth. First of all, this argument refuses to notice that there was no National Guard at the time. In fact, the militia “…consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age…” according to United States law (US Code Section 311). This opposing view also expects one to believe that phrase “the people,” means individuals approved by the government in this instance, but the same phrase means all American citizens in every other instance in the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution, and the Bill of Rights. It holds no water.
Probably the most common position taken to refute this idea is that if the people in California ban certain guns or heavily restrict gun ownership in general, it is ok because they voted on it, and want it. This however is an issue of majority rule and minority rights. It is the right of Americans to keep and possess arms as defined by the Constitution and Supreme Court, so no matter how much the majority of Chicagoans want to ban all guns, they cannot. It infringes on the Constitutional rights of those who do not want them banned. It is perfectly parallel to other issues. No matter how much the vast majority of Americans would like to make it so the KKK cannot propagate hate speech, it is their right to do so. If a small, conservative, Christian town wants to ban Islam because they feel it is a threat to their community, is it ok for them to do so, as long as they vote on it. Of course not! Freedom of religion is guaranteed to all Americans in the First Amendment, just as RKBA is in the Second. In terms of American rights, there is no difference between these situations and the situation we have in San Francisco and Chicago.
Outside of the real issue that the Second Amendment applies to all the state and local governments in the U.S., many opponents take issue with firearms themselves. Opponents of RKBA often include police officers and victims of gun violence. From this perspective, or the perspective of any reasonable person, it is beneficial to keep guns out of the hands of criminals. The problem with banning handguns or “assault” rifles is that these measures simply do not, and cannot work. Banning handguns only affects those inclined to obey laws in the first place. Drug dealers, muggers, robbers, and the like are no more likely to obey such a restriction than they are to obey laws against assault or breaking and entering. The only people that these laws truly affect are law abiding citizens; the vast majority of gun owners. A handgun ban affects competition shooters, those who are inclined to keep a handgun in the home or business, or those inclined to obtain a license to carry a concealed handgun. Criminals, by their very nature, ignore laws like this. An example is Washington D.C., which is the murder capitol of the nation and has one of the highest murder rates in the world despite their total ban on both handguns and almost all firearms (Safe Streets). Instead, RKBA supporters suggest tougher penalties for violent criminals and eliminating the “revolving door syndrome” that plagues the U.S. prison system. Another thing RKBA supporters promote is the idea that more firearms in the hands of responsible citizens could result in less crime. An example is Florida, which has both libertarian gun laws and is famous for allowing its residents to use them for self defense (Post). A criminal in Florida has a high chance of being encountering armed resistance among his victims. A criminal in San Francisco knows he has almost no chance of meeting armed resistance. Where do you think a criminal would rather be? This is the common sense approach that is so often left out of the debate.
Another approach RKBA opponents take is to suggest that handguns and “assault” weapons serve no useful purpose. To someone who does not “like” or own guns, this seems reasonable. But gun owners know there are many useful purposes for all guns, including such “dangerous weapons” as “AK-47’s.” What more useful purpose could any object serve than to protect ones life, property, and family? Beyond this often attacked use, hunting is an obvious example, but there are more. Olympic competition shooting is a good example. There is also practical pistol shooting, as well as defensive pistol shooting competitions. These competitions require handguns with standard capacity magazines. This means that they usually hold more than ten rounds, and these types of guns are constantly under attack by anti-gun elements. There are also high power rifle competitions which require civilian versions of military weapons (also under attack) to hit multiple targets at long distances and with impressive speed. There is also the 3-gun competition which requires use of a handgun (with more than 10 rounds), shotgun, and rifle. A typical rifle for this competition would be a civilian-legal, semi-automatic version of the U.S. military M16, or a rifle based on the Kalashnikov design (commonly referred to by the anti-gun crowd as “an AK-47 assault rifle”). These and other activities are hosted all over the country by RKBA groups like the NRA as well as private and public gun clubs, and enjoyed by people of every race, age, and sex. In addition to all this, some of the most outspoken leaders of the anti-gun interest apparently see a use for firearms. Anti-gun politicians and celebrities hire bodyguards armed with weapons that are illegal for “regular” people to own in their states and use taxpayer money to have police guard their homes and workplaces. Not all Americans have the power, wealth, and influence to procure this kind of protection. Fortunately, the Second Amendment guarantees them the right to provide it for themselves.
This issue need not be complicated with these debates however. Proponents of gun control will, for the foreseeable future, be at odds with those who wish to be able to freely posses arms in the United States. The issue of firearms in society is a very personal one which is almost always dictated by emotion, belief, upbringing, and perhaps even gut instinct. However, the right to keep and bear arms is an individual, Constitutional right. This has been reaffirmed by the federal government and the Supreme Court. These are the bodies that have jurisdiction in this arena. Even though many people may not agree with the very idea of individual citizens having firearms, this fact still stands. As such, it is largely inconsequential that some individuals do not agree with it. Gun control supporters must lobby on a federal level for an amendment to the Constitution if they wish to see the RKBA landscape in the United States changed. Mayors, city councilmen, and even state legislatures have no business restricting the civil rights of Americans in their limited jurisdictions on a piecemeal basis. American citizens, whether they live in Texas or California, deserve the rights guaranteed to them by the Bill of Rights. Anything less is an affront to justice, integrity, and the very fabric of the Republic.
