What You Don’t Know Can Kill You

By Patrick Walker

Staff Writer, ‘14, Chemistry

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.”

The second amendment to the Constitution is arguably the most hotly debated sentence in American history. Opinions of how to interpret it tend to fall in one of two choices: Either you can own and regularly carry a gun only when part of a police or military force, or there should be little to no restrictions on gun ownership. Both of these opinions view the second amendment as either stopping or starting at the comma, when the true purpose is to join them. It is both surprising and disappointing that our two major political parties can’t even agree on the purpose behind a simple punctuation mark.

Both sides have logical arguments. An untrained person with a tool designed to kill is clearly a dangerous thing. At the same time, a citizenry unable to defend itself without the assistance of its government is left with nothing if that government is inept or corrupt. For more context on the second amendment, we can look to Federalist Papers. In his essay “Concerning the Militia,” Alexander Hamilton states, “with respect to the people at large,” it is reasonable to have them “properly armed and equipped.” However, this advice is given with the caveat that it would be necessary to “assemble them [the people] once or twice” every year.

It is clear that the Constitution’s intent was not a country where the citizens are freely carrying guns with no training or a country where the citizens must depend on a special group of armed government workers for defense. The intent was for a citizenry that is both armed and trained in the use of their arms. States such as Arizona, Alaska, and Vermont who allow for concealed carrying of weapons without a permit do not fit this concept. States that allow for “no carry” areas, such as New York City or the now defunct handgun ban in Chicago, do not fit this. Every state that does not require some level of training for gun ownership does not fit this.

An abstinence policy is not the answer to the issue of gun violence in a country where there are on average 90 guns per 100 people. At the same time, the answer is not to put a gun in the hands of anyone who wishes to own one. Firearm ownership is not simply a right, but a responsibility, and one that should be taken as such. The answer is not more guns or fewer guns, but more gun knowledge.