If the second amendment does not mean what it says, what about the first...this was the question asked by author and National Rifle Association member, Bill Clede. In his article GUN CONTROL – PRESS CONTROL, he warns journalists about the hidden dangers associated with gun control. When dealing with the interpretation of the Constitution, there is two views one can take. The Constitution can be viewed as a living document or in its original understanding. The original understanding, people are guided by what the Framers of the Constitution had in mind when they drafted it. The Constitution can also be viewed as a living document in which the interpretation should be surveyed in light of today's social and politics environments. Bill Clede ideas in his article seem to be guild by the idea of the Constitution being a living document. At the time the Second Amendment was written, it had a major impact on this country because State and National governments were unable or lacked the power to protect the people. This Amendment gave the power to the people to bear arms for protection. As Clede points out in his article, it was not the intent or purpose of this Amendment to bestow unlimited rights upon the people. The question to ask today is are the people responsible enough to have the unlimited rights that they seem to have under this Amendment. Clede states that does not mean that the government can constitutionally prohibit all weapons, but it probably means that the government can reasonably regulate and limit their use.
I agree with Clede's point. The language of the Constitution is very vague. The second amendment states that 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. Never did the Constitution define or give examples of what a well regulated militia is or types of weapons deemed reasonable for protection. It then should be left to Congress or more importantly the Supreme Court to interrupt this vague language. I think the government could reasonable regulate guns, without compromising the second amendment, but like Clede I believe Congress should concentrate more on who is using the guns and not guns themselves. Patrick Henry felt that we should preserve our public liberties and if need be by force. As Patrick Henry stated that the great objective is that every man be armed. Thomas Jefferson and John Adams also held the same views as Patrick Henry that every man should have the right to bear arms for private self-defense. Our forefathers felt that it was very important for individuals to bear arms for protection of property, life or limb, when they created a document that protected these rights; this seems to be evident because to right to bear arms is the Second Amendment. Again, the question must be raised, did our forefathers foresee a time when this freedom that they embraced would cause such wide-spread crime in our country. The perplexing question to ask is, how can we maintain our individual rights and yet get the guns out of the hands of convicted felons, drug addicts and people who are mentally impaired from owning guns as Clede suggests in his article. He and every other self-respect gun owner is in favor of a waiting period before the purchasing of any type of gun. Clede has clearly taken the stand of some type of tighter control on the sale of guns without touching the Second Amendment.
A large problem that has been addressed in Clede's article is that no matter what changes we make in the law concerning guns, the crime element in this country will always be able to obtain guns. Perhaps we should take a closer look at the manufacture of guns and why they are manufactured in such abundance when the number of guns already exceeds the population of this country. Although the law forbids the ownership of automatic weapons, they can easily be obtained for the right price and always to the criminal element in our society. These are the problems that should be addressed, not the out right banning of guns. I think Bill Clede has done an excellent job in addressing the issues of gun control in his article. He makes people realize that the issues involved in gun control are not so cut and dry, that it is not simply an issue of should we have a form of gun control. This point is apparent at the end of his article when he finally returns to the question he asked at the beginning of the article…if the Second Amendment doesn't mean what it says, what about the first. If lobbyist or government officials are able to change the second amendment and achieve strong forms of gun control which is an infringement on peoples' Constitution rights, it could be easily assumed that the next target could be the First Amendment. My nations in the world today, including western-style democracies, control or limit the press in some way.
Luckily measures of press control have not happened in this country, particularly because of the Bill of Rights and the First Amendment, but it should be noted censorship is a prime source of debate in America today. Clede has clearly pointed out how closely related the issues of gun control and press control are in his article.
Problems with Gun Control - Problems with Gun Control - Problems with Gun Control