'Arms' have come a long way since the Founding Fathers
By Rowland Nethaway
September 20, 2004
'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."
For some gun owners, the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution means no gun control laws. No infringement means just that -- no laws that restrict the right of citizens to own and equip themselves with armaments of their choosing.
For many gun control advocates, the key to understanding the Second Amendment lies in the part that about a well-regulated militia being necessary to defend the nation. The amendment emphasizes citizens using arms in a regulated military application. There wasn't much controversy over this issue back when the nation's founders included it in the Bill of Rights, promulgated in 1791 to provide guarantees of individual liberties to citizens who had many of these rights abridged by British colonial authorities.
The need for citizens to be able to grab a musket from over the fireplace and join neighbors in a militia in defense of their homeland made sense after the American Revolution.
The nation's founders thought in terms of citizen soldiers. To them, the term "arms" meant muzzle-loading guns, swords, knives, pistols and cannon.
The word "arms" is not limited to rifles, shotguns and pistols. Arms mean weapons used in fighting, especially in warfare. It is the root of armaments, armies and armadas.
Today, arms include Cruise missiles, land mines, shoulder-fired missiles, stealth bombers and all manner of weapons of mass destruction, including nuclear bombs.
Not only did the nation's founders lack standing national armies and navies, they also could never have imagined that the word "arms" could include today's weaponry. Like it or not, the right of the private citizens to keep and bear arms has already been infringed by outlawing the ownership of all sorts of weapons now relegated for use by the nation's well-regulated military.
Today's heated disputes over gun-control laws swirl around how to best regulate what is left, shotguns and relatively small- caliber rifles and handguns.
There was a time when any American with $200 could buy a new Thompson fully automatic .45-caliber machine gun. These weapons became popular with gangsters who used them to mow down police officers and innocent bystanders.
To protect society, Second Amendment or not, Congress soon passed a popular gun control law that outlawed the manufacture and sale of new fully automatic weapons to private citizens. Like most regulations, there are exceptions and loopholes in the machine gun law. By getting the right sort of license, which in the past has been easy, citizens can still own fully automatic machine guns.
The 10-year 1994 "assault weapons ban" that Congress recently refused to renew was a case study in exceptions and loopholes.
Although the 1994 ban outlawed the manufacture of 19 semiautomatic weapons and features such as bayonet mounts, flash suppressors, collapsing stocks, certain grips and grenade launchers, gun manufacturers easily outmaneuvered the law with a few minor changes and a new name for the same weapons.
Besides, all the millions of old weapons with the newly outlawed features, including large ammunition clips, were still legal and easily obtained.
My proposal is to regulate guns the same way we regulate cars, planes and other motor vehicles. We should register all guns, old and new, and license the owners. No exceptions. No loopholes. Then we should crack down hard on gun crimes.
As a lifelong gun owner, my rights would not be infringed, but the licensing and registration would better protect society in the same way it does with motor vehicles.
-- Rowland Nethaway is senior editor of the Waco (Texas) Tribune-Herald.
----------------------------------------------------
Sigh. Never thought I'd hear this from a Texan.
Sawdust
By Rowland Nethaway
September 20, 2004
'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."
For some gun owners, the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution means no gun control laws. No infringement means just that -- no laws that restrict the right of citizens to own and equip themselves with armaments of their choosing.
For many gun control advocates, the key to understanding the Second Amendment lies in the part that about a well-regulated militia being necessary to defend the nation. The amendment emphasizes citizens using arms in a regulated military application. There wasn't much controversy over this issue back when the nation's founders included it in the Bill of Rights, promulgated in 1791 to provide guarantees of individual liberties to citizens who had many of these rights abridged by British colonial authorities.
The need for citizens to be able to grab a musket from over the fireplace and join neighbors in a militia in defense of their homeland made sense after the American Revolution.
The nation's founders thought in terms of citizen soldiers. To them, the term "arms" meant muzzle-loading guns, swords, knives, pistols and cannon.
The word "arms" is not limited to rifles, shotguns and pistols. Arms mean weapons used in fighting, especially in warfare. It is the root of armaments, armies and armadas.
Today, arms include Cruise missiles, land mines, shoulder-fired missiles, stealth bombers and all manner of weapons of mass destruction, including nuclear bombs.
Not only did the nation's founders lack standing national armies and navies, they also could never have imagined that the word "arms" could include today's weaponry. Like it or not, the right of the private citizens to keep and bear arms has already been infringed by outlawing the ownership of all sorts of weapons now relegated for use by the nation's well-regulated military.
Today's heated disputes over gun-control laws swirl around how to best regulate what is left, shotguns and relatively small- caliber rifles and handguns.
There was a time when any American with $200 could buy a new Thompson fully automatic .45-caliber machine gun. These weapons became popular with gangsters who used them to mow down police officers and innocent bystanders.
To protect society, Second Amendment or not, Congress soon passed a popular gun control law that outlawed the manufacture and sale of new fully automatic weapons to private citizens. Like most regulations, there are exceptions and loopholes in the machine gun law. By getting the right sort of license, which in the past has been easy, citizens can still own fully automatic machine guns.
The 10-year 1994 "assault weapons ban" that Congress recently refused to renew was a case study in exceptions and loopholes.
Although the 1994 ban outlawed the manufacture of 19 semiautomatic weapons and features such as bayonet mounts, flash suppressors, collapsing stocks, certain grips and grenade launchers, gun manufacturers easily outmaneuvered the law with a few minor changes and a new name for the same weapons.
Besides, all the millions of old weapons with the newly outlawed features, including large ammunition clips, were still legal and easily obtained.
My proposal is to regulate guns the same way we regulate cars, planes and other motor vehicles. We should register all guns, old and new, and license the owners. No exceptions. No loopholes. Then we should crack down hard on gun crimes.
As a lifelong gun owner, my rights would not be infringed, but the licensing and registration would better protect society in the same way it does with motor vehicles.
-- Rowland Nethaway is senior editor of the Waco (Texas) Tribune-Herald.
----------------------------------------------------
Sigh. Never thought I'd hear this from a Texan.
Sawdust
