CMJR 450 - Week 5

The Second Ammendment to the United States Constitution protects citizens for their right to keep and bear arms. John Adams, one of our nations founders, lead a defense for British soldiers on trial for the famous Boston Massacre. He stated, "Here every private person is authorized to arm himself, and on the strength of this authority, I do not deny the inhabitants had a right to arm themselves at that time, for their defense, not for offence".

David Carr writes in our text Page 203, "We cast ourselves in an unfolding story and act it out. Because we choose the story and our role in it, we can switch stories at any time". This quote is an open-ended dictation of the profound importance of how the Second Ammendment is upheld, defended and protested in our society. I believe there is a double-edged sword to these points.

The events of Columbine and Virginia Tech speak volumes to the conflict by which we interpret this freedom that we may choose to follow. How do we purposefully and safely integrate this enormous power that is held in the freedom to bear arms? Is it possible to safely and assuredly allow the Second Ammendment to sustain itself in today's society? What is the interpretation of Mr. Carr's statement? Our "stories" are based on each individual's values and lifes experiences. How then, can we rely on the individual interpretation of what is best for all when we each relay our own stories as individual assessments of what is best for the good of the nation?

Appauling statistics on the failure to bear arms is the reality of what history tells on the affect of such a privilege being revoked or denied. "Seven countries instituted gun control and almost immediately rounded up and slaughtered almost 56 million innocent people. (i.e., Germany, China, Uganda) The implied relationship is clearly causal: 56 million people would have lived if they had kept their guns". - page 209

In The Turner Diaries, Turner attributes "political legitimacy to individual citizens who are entitled to violate a gun control law" - page 209. He refers to the notion of us "meakly allowing ourselves to be disarmed". I disagree with Mr. Turner that any of us would meakly consider such a notion.

My opinion is the voice of most Americans. Guns, in the right hands, are a freedom we have been given. In most circumstances, this right protects us and enables us to live in a society wherein we can live without fear or consequences. However, how do we keep guns out of the hands of derrranged and mentally ill individuals who abuse this right?

Perhaps the answer lies in the issuance of guns to those who are proven of sound mind. How do we achieve this? If I knew the answer, I would be a hero in any sense of the word. Our right to bear arms is a gift. It is, unfortunately, a gift that has been abused by some and has cost the lives of many an innocent bystander. The Second Ammendment is controversial and leads many debates on the subject of bearing arms.

For the parents of the victims of Columbine, the scope of the Second Ammendment takes on a difficult and passionate debate. Where do we draw the line? Who do we permit to carry a gun? How do we control that which we have no control over? Where do we begin and where will it end?