Common misconceptions with guns

Ever since the Sandy Hook shooting last December, people have been up in arms in two different parties: Those who are for the rights of everyone to own guns - And those who want some form of gun control that includes background checks, mental health evaluations, and a ban on assault weapons. Both of these ideas reflect the ideals of those on each individual party: The right-wing conservatives and the left-wing liberals respectfully.

Each side make some valid points and a good, actual debate between individuals who are mature. But unfortniutly for each of those to occur, we need to get past common misconceptions and beliefs that each side believes. Once people can do this, we can move forward and decided what we can do.

1) The second Amendment as a whole

"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."

Alright, simple enough. The second amendment is stating that a militia that is regulated, that is needed for the security of a state, shall not have it's right to bear arms be infringed. Now what's wrong with this is that many people misinterpertate it.

The 2nd Amendment as a whole goes far beyond that little sentence stated, as it expands to other parts of he constitution. For example in Article I, Section 8 it states that the constitution "explicitly gives Congress the power "to provide for calling for the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions." Article III, Section 3 also declares that taking up arms, or "levying war," against the United States constitutes treason. Now with these in mind, the constitution also states that the U.S is to have its army re-evaluated every two years. This relates to the thought of tyranny on everyones' mind. A standing army could be used to put those into tyranny, but a standing militia could protect ones from threats, both foreign and domestic.

Foreign and domestic pretty much means anything from Native Americans, slave uprisings, to revolts like Shay's and Whiskey's. What does this all prove? The framework of the 2nd Amendment to protect both the government and population from any threats. Now this can relate to the issues that people believe that "shall not be infringed" is the equivalent to "no gun control laws". If we were to believe this, the founding fathers themselves would have broken the law.

- Regulation of gun powder, including how much you could keep at home.

- Door to door surveys to see who had guns and what conditions they were in. You had to present all firearms you owned, private and those for militia use. They were then inspected and registered.

- Mandatory musters (role call) where citizens were expected to show up with their arms (including private ones) to have them inspected and registered. If you didn't show up or had insufficient arms/ammo, you were fined.

- Free blacks often couldn't own guns

- Anyone who didn't support the war had all firearms confiscated and were barred from even borrowing or using other firearms belonging to friends or family (how would they be able to defend themselves against criminals or the government? Self defense taken away)

- Persons involved in Shay's rebellion were disarmed for 3 years and had to swear allegiance to the state.

- Concealed carry was banned in many states, starting with the South. (early 1800s)

Some places like MA banned loaded guns from most places in the state. These pretty much prove that guns are able to be regulated through laws.

2) The right to revolt

The common misconception that the 2nd amendment is there to protect one against tyranny of the government is full of untruths that its mind-boggling so many people believe it. Say what you will about the supposed "quotes" from the founding fathers, but their words are not law so making an argument from that is meaningless. Lets take a look at the infamous Whiskey's Rebellion. In it, George Washington lead about 13,000 militia men to crush the rebellion on the taxation of whiskey by farmers. If we would agree that this act was constitutional under the constitution as stated in Article I, Section 8, which "explicitly gives Congress the power "to provide for calling for the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions.". This is also stated in Article III, Section 3, which "declares that taking up arms, or "levying war," against the United States constitutes treason."

So it appears that under the frame of the constitution, that revolting can be considered a treasonous offense to the government. 


3) Gun control laws in certain states

Comparing gun laws from state-to-state in order to generate any rational opinion on change is meaningless and flawed beyond belief. A state to a state has only so much room for barriers and limitations on any law, from guns to abortion, that its easy to get over a state law. If one state decided to 100% ban guns, what would stop someone from going a few miles to the nearest state, buying a few clips and rifles, and going back to their state? Little to nothing. Compare this with federal as it would be much harder to bypass laws nationwide compared to a small slice in the country.

Another reason this argument doesn't work is that with each state, a new version of the law would be passed. The differences in one state alone can affect the entire country. For example, lets just say that Texas 100% allows anyone over the age of 18 to buy a gun, no background checks, no regulations, nothing. Then lets say Oklahoma does the exact opposite and nearly bans any type of gun deemed "bad". How many people would flood to Texas to buy their needs, and then flood back to the other states like Oklahoma? How much crime in both states would escalate or drop because of this?

4) Cars kills more than guns, should we ban Cars too?

I saved what is, to me, the most pointless statement relevant to guns. Let's go over the several differences between guns and cars.

Now a cars most basic design and usage is to transport someone from point A to point B. A gun is to hurt, injure, and/or kill. Now both have other usages for that, but that's basically the nit-and-griddy. Using that as an argument is childish and meaningless. 

First of all, a car has 100x the amount of regulation and control that guns have. Seatbelts, speed limits, airbags, design of the interior like how the seats are arranged, there are tons and tons of regulation put on them. Which leads my point on why it's innopropriate to compare them to guns on the scale of murders. The whole basis on the gun control debate is simply better gun laws to keep people more safe, without the risk of alienating gun-owners. Now while some do go to the extreme of banning guns, which is stupid, that is only a very small minority whose opinions aren't very common in the mainstream. Nobody is suggesting we ban cars either, but with all the regulation we put on cars to secure a safer enviornment, then why not do the same for a gun?

Of course the answer would be right v privledge. Well according to the 2008 District of Columbia v Hellen, private owners of guns outside a militia have the ability to own guns, but still need to answer to proper laws and have the ability to have restrictions put unto them. "The 2nd amendment doesn't protect guns not possessed by law-abiding citizens for law-abiding purposes" - that quote from this trial pretty much sums that up.