When 'rights' are wronged
11:03 AM, Wednesday, December 19 2007 | 368 views | 0 0 comments | 3 3 recommendations | email to a friend | print
By Scott Perkins

The right to bear arms shall not be infringed upon. That's not just a paraphrase of the Second Amendment of the United States Constitution, it's also the collective message of the millions of men and women who exercise their right to keep and bear arms.

Many proponents for the Second Amendment have said recently, "You're not going to take my guns."

And we certainly feel they shouldn't be forced to give them up. These law-abiding residents take aim at many objects, whether it be game, targets or varmints. They do not take aim at other people. And their rights should not be trod upon because of criminals who sometimes line up their sights with ill intentions.

Many naysayers of the Second Amendment jump on the opportunity to point out gun violence as a reason to limit or cease a citizen's right to bear arms.

The good people of Omaha recently faced a tragic shooting where eight innocent people were killed in a shopping mall. Is the Second Amendment to blame? What about the gun? Come on.

A church in Colorado faced similar circumstances last weekend where a gun-carrying citizen who also served as a quasi-security guard fired a shot, wounding the shooter and ending the horror. The woman who exercised her right to bear arms that day probably saved lives, including the shooter's.

If people can blame these killings on an inanimate object like a gun, then we can blame our mistakes as journalists on our keyboards. We know our readers aren't going to swallow that one.

The Second Amendment and its validity in today's age - one without militias - has become an emotional issue on both sides.


The vagueness of the Bill of Rights is its most enduring quality. There's room for interpretation and room to grow. Without its broad authoring, it would not still be the fulfillment it is today to the Declaration of Independence.

The right to bear arms in its infancy was seeded in protection against the British army. But today, this right has spanned into cultural and societal realms and far from the simplicity of protection.

We have thousands of gun laws. We don't need any more. What we need is enforcement. What we need is an understanding that bad people will do bad things with a gun or not. And most likely, if they acquire a rifle or a handgun to do harm, you can bet a majority of them were not obtained through legal means.

Leave the right to bear arms and the Second Amendment alone. The militia mention in the amendment could just be a phrase of the times.

So what did our forefathers intend with the Second Amendment?

If it was drafted today it could have read, "A well regulated citizenry, being necessary to the security of their family or person, a mall or a church, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed upon."

Who knows for sure, but we think their collective message of "We the people" being able to pursue liberty and be free and to stand tall against tyranny and evil should speak for itself.
Comments-icon Post a Comment
No Comments Yet