|
I own a gun. I hunt. But as an American History teacher, I also feel compelled to address the Constitutional issue which gun advocates love to cite.
First, the 2nd Amendment refers specifically to the need for a well-regulated militia. NRA-ers regularly disregard this qualifiying clause.
Second, I feel that it's important to consider why they found a well-regulated militia so important. Was it to overthrow the government? No, they'd just created that government, so they didn't want it thrown. Their mechanism for drastic political change was the idea of an amendable Constitution, not armed rebellion against the constitutionally elected government. Was it because they were fearful of another invasion by the British (or some other ambitious European power)? That explanation makes since if America is a fledgeling power in the late 18th Century, but not if America is the world's most militaristic super-power. And anyway, that wasn't why they included the 2nd Amendment in the Bill of Rights. The real reason for the 2nd Amendment was that the Southern States required it.
Now let's think about possible reasons why the Southern states would have required a fast-response, locally-based, quasi-military force to keep the security. That's right, give youself a cookie if you guessed slave-rebellions. There were millions of slaves, and they rebelled with some frequency, so the Whites lived in terror of the thought of marauding Blacks murdering the Masters and raping the young Misses.
Check the historical sources (start with James Madison, who actually composed the 2nd Amendment), and you'll see that I am right. Then debate whether or not gun-control works 'til you're blue in the face. But leave my Constitution out of it.
|