Archive for November 21st, 2007

First of all, I don’t own a gun, have never owned a gun and never intend to own a gun. I am a pacifist. What sparked this title was the fact that the Supreme Court of the United States of America is going to hear a case about the handgun ban in the District of Columbia. They last heard a case about the Second Amendment nearly 70 years ago. None of the sitting justices have heard a Second Amendment case, so we have no idea which way this will go.

The text of the Second Amendment states, “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.” This has led to great controversy about the impact the phrase, “A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state” has on the second part of the Amendment. If it simply stated, ‘The right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed,’ we wouldn’t be having this discussion.

I think it’s fairly clear why the Amendment was added. Our country was founded through a violent popular revolution. Had the ordinary citizen not been able to own guns, our history would be quite different. That being said, arms in those days were muzzle-loading muskets over 3 feet long. In addition, hunting was a necessary part of survival; the banning of guns would have left thousands starving.

Fast-forward to today. A handgun can be concealed damn near anywhere. The sole purpose of a handgun is to kill/harm a person. It’s not like you’re going to go after that 10-point stag with a 9mm Glock. One of the prevailing arguments for owning a handgun is self-protection. However, that argument has been solidly squashed. The instances where someone actually used their gun to successfully defend themselves against a home invader or an attacker are quite small. Far more people are killed either accidentally or deliberately with those same handguns purchased to protect them.

That all being said, I’m actually ambivalent about this issue. Some times I feel quite libertarian and want the government to get the hell out of my life. On the other hand, I can quite clearly see the need for government regulation to protect vulnerable populations. In this case, does the need to reduce death and injury by handguns override the “right” of people to possess something designed exclusively for the death of another human being?

Maybe I’m not so ambivalent. Britain seems to have done quite well banning handguns. I don’t see their people suffering greatly from their inability to “defend themselves”. At any rate, it will be interesting to see how this all plays out with a right-wing court.