by Ken King

With the recent events of the day, and all the rhetoric concerning the need for more gun laws, I felt a need to write a little about the Second Amendment and how I interpret it.  Which by the way has been getting some discussion already on the News and Current Events thread in the forums.

Before I get into that I would like to make it clear to all of you that I have yet to see a gun, by itself, kill any person without some form of human interaction.  Be it in the commission of a crime, an accidental shooting, a negligent shooting, hunting accident, or some other type of accident (like the old cleaning the gun routine).  The gun by itself doesn’t kill, it is the person controlling this tool that is doing the killing.

Okay, on to the amendment, The words are simple enough and read easily with a very clear meaning, at least for me.

“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.”

I guess however that many other people see them differently.  A lot of people have read a lot into these few words.  Some argue that there is no right within the words for the people to own weapons.  That they were for only those that serve in the militia of the state (today’s Reserves).  I see this as highly dubious as within the Constitution the ability to have standing armies and navies was addressed.  To reiterate it within an amendment is a redundancy that makes no sense. And these were very thoughtful men that crafted these words.

Myself, I see it in a much different way.  To understand how I read that simple sentence you need to break down it into two distinct parts.

PART I

“A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state”

This first part gives me the meaning that there will be a standing army for the protection of the nation.  It is necessary to protect the nation from those that would or could overthrow the government.

PART II

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

This portion affirms the individual’s right, beyond the state’s and nation’s right, to always be allowed to be armed.

Why would that be?  If you think about it, and the history of the time, we knew that other nations had standing armies and were either military dictatorships or kingdoms.  Under these nations the people had no ability or right to own weapons.  They were at the whim of their leader and in his interest they were denied what we had just fought for, the prospect of self determination.  A government of the people and by the people.

As a deterrent to the possibility of being taken over by a tyrannical form of government, the people of the many states demanded that they be given an explicit Constitutional authority to possess weapons so that they would have the ability to thwart any attempt at tyranny.  This feeling was so strong it was amplified by stating that the right shall not be infringed.  Remember this was one of several amendments required by the states to be added as a condition of ratification of the Constitution.  It was obviously extremely important then just as I think it is today.

For the heck of it let’s look at the word “infringed”.  It means (at least according to Webster), to encroach upon in a way that violates law or the rights of another.  There is a lot of wiggle room when talking about “shall not be infringed”.  There are many laws that some could see as being infringement on the right.  There are others that can readily be seen as being for the “common good”.  What would one see as being infringed?  More importantly how does the government (national, state, and local) see it and define it?

Should everyone have the right to own a gun?  Immediately I would say no.  There are many that shouldn’t have the ability to own a gun.  Those who have been convicted for crimes of violence.  Those that are mentally unstable are some more people I would question the soundness of allowing them to have a firearm.  I’m sure we could find more, like illegal aliens, I don’t think those illegally within our country should have any rights, but that is another story.  There are probably others as well, but it is obvious that some shouldn’t possess weapons.

Should there be types of weapons that the general public should not be allowed to own?  This time I will answer yes, but I can have my mind changed with a little convincing.  There are some weapons like planes, tanks, sea craft, and other hardware that is of a strictly military nature that probably shouldn’t be available to the people.  Though when evaluating the amendment it would seem that this is within what it was the people would need to keep the government in balance should it rise up against them.  Again this is an area that I am open for argument on and welcome any thoughts upon it.  Right now there isn’t much discussion or debate on these items so we’ll just let them slide for now.

The current debate, as I see it, is that it seems that many want to have the country “gun free”, others would simply settle for the elimination of handguns and assault weapons (to be read as high power rifles and tactical weapons) and then there are those that feel that they should be allowed to own any and as many weapons as they see fit.  As long as they are not criminals.

Gun free is just too ludicrous to comment on.  The people that want this are simply lunatics deserving to live in a country that dictates to them and controls every aspect of their lives.  That isn’t America and that isn’t how I want to live.

The next group (restrictive weapons groups) is also flawed, while I think they have reasons for their thinking, I believe that they just don’t understand weapons or a person’s needs at all.  By simply looking at the types of weapons some could argue that some rifles and shotguns are okay but handguns should not be allowed.  Seems logical, everyone could still have a weapon, all’s well.  There wouldn’t be anyone that could yank a gun from their belt and start firing away.  That seems fine, unless you have a handicap or just can’t handle a rifle for whatever reason or limitation.

Wouldn’t any attempt at the elimination of handguns be an infringement on many within our society and their right to bear arms?  And if you allow one group to own handguns then wouldn’t you have to allow all of the people to own them?  Well, that’s supposed to be how it works, isn’t it?  So immediately I see a need for both long guns and handguns.  Then we have Maryland and the gun Nazis bent on making this state “gun free”.  I wonder how long after the first of the year the criminal element will become more aggressive in their activities?

Maryland’s new law, which goes into effect at the beginning of the year says, with regard to handguns:

“Starting Jan. 1, 2003, dealers may not sell, offer for sale, rent or transfer any handgun made on or before Dec. 31, 2002 unless the handgun has an "integrated mechanical safety device."

An "integrated mechanical safety device" is further defined as, "A disabling or locking device that is built into a handgun; and is designed to prevent the handgun from being discharged unless the device has been deactivated."

The law also establishes a "Handgun Roster Board" appointed to (among other duties) research "personalized" handgun technology and report firearm industry progress on this technology to the Maryland General Assembly by July 1, 2002. 

A handgun manufactured with "personalized" technology can only be fired by the registered owner of the gun. Only a few prototype models of these so called "smart guns" exist today, but several major gun manufactures are working on further development.” 

This new law to me is the epitome of infringement.  The most glaringly obvious aspect is that if I purchase a weapon my other family members won’t be able to use it if the need arises.  This means I have to buy more weapons to meet my family needs.  Not to mention that I know of no companies that make a weapon with the integrated mechanical safety device.  Additionally, depending on the technology used a person might only have the ability to fire the weapon with one hand.  Many times the need to switch hands is critical to maintaining cover while being able to shoot.  Some of these future guns would defeat that ability.  Now if you look at this topic closely you will ask yourself how could I trust one of these weapons if it was needed in an emergency?  The answer is you couldn’t, at least not when the law takes effect.  Another aspect of this technology will be the additional cost of the weapon and how those of us without a great deal of surplus cash will be able to afford any of the not yet available weapons.  A good handgun costs anywhere around $500 to $800.  With the new technology you can add an easy $600 more to the price tag.  That is once they become available, if they ever do.   All I can say about Maryland’s law is that if this isn’t infringement what is?