This is a continuation of my previous article, about different interpretations and viewpoints; of the first and second amendments to the constitution.Â I may be way off base on this one, but it seems to me sometimes that people are only reading the half of the second amendment that they want to; I'll demonstrate what I mean:
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.
I looked up the word "militia", and it is defined in the following ways:
1. a part of the organized armed forces of a country liable to call only in emergency
2.a body of citizens organized for military service
3. the whole body of able-bodied male citizens declared by law as being subject to call to military service
First off, I will say that from the definitions of "militia" that are given; it does seem to me that private citizens can own guns- although it's not only men of course. What I don't understand is when people see most, or any, regulation of guns; as infringing on their rights to own one. I don't understand why if guns weren't meant to be regulated, why it says WELL REGULATED militia; something can be regulated without taking away someone's right to own or do something. I could understand someone saying their constitutional rights were being violated, if they were responsible and law abiding; yet they couldn't buy a gun. The thing is though, people have said their rights are being violated for such things as background checks; as well as registration.
I have no issue with a responsible and law abiding citizen owning a gun, I just don't get what is so wrong with background checks; or gun registration- once someone "checks out" to be ok- then they can have their gun. I also think it seems far fetched that the government is using gun registration, as a means to disarm citizens. I don't even know how many millions of people in this country have registered firearms, in addition to those who don't register them; seems like trying to disarm all the citizens of this country would be a pretty tall order- you'd have to have a police state to even come close.
Having common sense regulation on guns also makes it more likely, that more people will be operating them in a safe manner; since gun safety classes are one result of regulation- at least in the state where I'm at. Someone may be perfectly law abiding, but if they can't operate a firearm in a safe manner; then I doubt anyone would be in favor of them owning one. If there was no regulation at all on guns, then the safety classes wouldn't be required; and you'd have even more people not learning proper gun safety.
It's just odd to me that with guns, some people see pretty much any regulation at all; as violating their rights.Â When people reach the legal driving age, they don't see the rules to obtaining their driver's license; as violating their right to drive.Â In both instances, you are operating something that has the potential to be deadly. I'm not in favor of taking away someone's right to own a gun, if they are responsible and law abiding of course; but is the answer really to strip away any rules pertaining to gun ownership- in order for people to protect themselves in that way- if they choose? People can't still choose to protect themselves, and still have some common sense regulation?