Gun Prohibition: Good Intentions, Bad Execution

First off, the title may be a bit misleading for this post, so let me clarify. I’m not, in any way, stating that there is a gun prohibition in place currently, at least not as comprehensive as the prohibition of alcohol. What I mean by gun prohibition in this case is merely the attempt to ban guns. A prohibition is the goal of many.

Now is where I start the meat of this article. First, I would like to link a news article. This is not a straight, unbiased (if there even is such a thing in our media anymore), article. I am using it however to link the U.S. Supreme Court ruling that I would like to talk about and also make some points on my feelings of the particular frame of thought that this article conveys.

http://www.freep.com/article/20100629/OPINION01/6290321/Supreme-Court-leaves-room-for-sensible-gun-control-efforts

First, let me applaud our Supreme Court for this ruling. I am, as you will increasingly find out in later blogs if I decide to blog about politics anymore, very much against what our Supreme Court has become. In fact, later on this week, maybe even later on today, I may post a blog on this view simply to provide case references to back up my thoughts. For now, my opinion will have to do. The job of the Supreme Court is to enforce the provisions made by the Constitution in relation to laws, federal, state, and local. The Constitution is, for all intents and purposes, the governing document of the Supreme Court. The Constitution, through its own rules, can only be amended (changed) by a 2/3 vote of Congress or a 3/4 vote of the State legislatures. As such, the Supreme Court has no authority to make changes to the Constitution. This is where my problem lies with what the Supreme Court has become. Under the guise of “interpreting” the Constitution, the Supreme Court has overruled laws, in effect pretty much creating anti-laws in their place. The Supreme Court was not created to interpret the Constitution. It was created to interpret how the Constitution applies to laws. The wording of the Constitution is fairly simple. It does not need to be interpreted. All that needs to take place is for the Supreme Court to catch laws that have been made that don’t abide by the Constitution and overrule them. The reason I am so happy with this ruling is because they are doing their job again. They are looking at what the Constitution says, in clear English, proper grammar and all, about gun rights, and they enforced the Constitution. Not interpretations, just purely looking at the words and applying them to what the state/local governments have been illegally doing.

Before we progress any further, please do not question my view on the role that I feel the Supreme Court has been taking. Like I said, I will be making a post dedicated to that later today or later this week. Question me about it then, this post is purely about this particular issue.

Back to the issue at hand. What does the second amendment say, in plain English? Here you go:

“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.”

Plain as day, it is the right of the people to keep AND bear arms (guns). Also, it cannot be INFRINGED!

What does this mean? Basically, nothing short of an amendment to the Constitution can, in any way, prohibit American citizens from owning and carrying guns.

Sorry, there is nothing enigmatic about that wording. If there is, you need to read some classics to get your understanding of grammar down. I don’t always type it the best, but I can read. Not that hard to do.

Last thing I do what to point out. Technically speaking, there is nothing, in the Constitution, limiting where arms can be carried. Technically, you have the Constitutional right to carry a gun on you at all times, though States/Local Governments ARE allowed to specify if it’s loaded or not (the Constitution doesn’t make that part clear) and the size/type. Private business’ and residences are allowed to ban guns on their property since both are allowed to discriminate who they cater to, as long as it’s not based on race, religion, or sexual preference.

The bad part. The property of any government, be it federal, state, or local, technically cannot ban guns on their property. It’s not private property.

That being said, I feel their should be laws on gun control. However, it needs to be done through the proper channels. It needs to be done as an amendment to the Constitution.

There is, however, another way for States/Local governments to regulate, legally, guns. They can, due to the wording of the Second Amendment, call on the first, most overlooked, part of the amendment. “A well-regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State” can be interpreted, and I encourage it to be interpreted as such, that only someone capable in serving in a “well-regulated” militia.

Let’s take the definition of militia from Merriam-Webster.

1 a : a part of the organized armed forces of a country liable to call only in emergency b : a body of citizens organized for military service
2 : the whole body of able-bodied male citizens declared by law as being subject to call to military service

Now, I’m pretty sure male citizens is no longer valid since women can serve in the military now, but this basically means anyone who can be drafted.

A state/local government COULD, however, take the first definition and require that anyone who tries to buy a gun would need to first be properly trained in its use, could even ensure that they are in good physical condition, and sign a document saying that they have the duty, in absence of the draft, but not superseding the reinstatement of the draft, to serve their state/local government in an organized militia to defend the state/local population in a time of invasion.

First, this interpretation protects the current regulations that most states have concerning the purchase of firearms. Most states prohibit the sale of firearms to those who have been convicted of felonies, who are mentally unstable, and who have not taken approved training courses pertaining to the use and function of their firearm. These current stipulations entirely coincide with the “well-regulated Militia” part of the Second Amendment.

Second, these regulations are already in effect, so why not utilize them to take it a step further, but this time ensuring that you not only are remaining within the CLEAR definitions of the Constitution, but that you have a SHITLOAD of manpower to protect you from invasion? Sure, it’ll probably never happen, but never is a long time and this could prove to be a huge benefit if such an invasion ever did occur.

That is my proposal for a gun law. That would prevent the need for an unlikely amendment to the Constitution and it would be beneficial to the state/local governments at almost no cost to themselves. The classes are in place. Just a little extra wording is needed in gun permits. Simple as that.

Anyways, I am happy about this because it is shooting down the illegal gun restrictions that have been put in place. It’s at least a step towards getting either the states/local governments to abide by the Constitution or have an amendment made to the Constitution to make the laws legal.

As long as it’s legal, I don’t care. Well, I do, but if it’s done properly, I have no valid right to complain.

Last thing I have to say before I close this out and head home for the day, or at least get back to work for an hour THEN head home, is this. Gun restrictions are good intentions. I truly believe that. If anyone reading this is all for them, I promise you that I am not criticising you for your want to reduce violence. However, most criminals that are out there shooting people are criminals that have already illegally obtained guns. They don’t abide by gun regulations in purchasing and they sure as hell won’t stop using guns. While these criminals are illegally obtaining and arming themselves with firearms, law-abiding people who have every right to defend themselves from these criminals are left without a means to defend themselves. I find that to be a criminal act in itself.

I encourage comments, criticism, and input of any kind. I don’t write to get my point across, I write to reinforce my own beliefs or to find the errors in them and change my mind. This can only be done through putting my thoughts on a silver platter and feeding them to the dogs.

No offence. You aren’t dogs. You understand.

Advertisements

Leave a comment

Filed under Random Awesomeness

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s