[Click to enlarge]

"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."

Many consider the Second Amendment's text to be ambiguous. I think it's because they're incorrectly reading and interpreting it. To me, the amendment must be broken down into two parts. First, the people have an explicit right to own firearms. Second, we have the right to own firearms for many reasons, the most important of which is to form a Militia if need be. This Militia is not created to protect from outside threats; rather it is formed to allow the states to protect themselves from federal infringement of rights granted to them in Article IV of our Constitution as well as the 10th Amendment.

Nevertheless, there are multiple words in this particular amendment that have the potential to warp the rights granted to us. Words like "Militia," "Arms" and "infringed." What makes things worse is that the amendment has mostly been debated in a political context, only adding smoke to the fire convoluting the amendment's meaning and confusing the general public.

Unfortunately, as average citizens, we are considered unfit to read and interpret our rights and therefore must look to the almighty Supreme Court for clarification. There haven't been many cases dealing with the Second Amendment but one is often used for historical reference: The 1939 case United States v. Miller. In this case the Court sustained a statute requiring registration, under the National Firearms Act, of sawed-off shotguns. The Court decided the Second Amendment is in fact in place to allow citizens to carry firearms in order to prevent infringement of states' rights. They justified the regulation of this specific firearm by asserting that the particular instrument was not necessary to the preservation of the Second Amendment. Moreover, a sawed-off shotgun was not part of any ordinary firearm. This case is used as justification for not allowing us to have a nuclear weapon in our garage.

Ironically enough, it's the states that are restricting our Second Amendment right more than the federal government. New regulations are constantly fading our right to bear arms. Most unconstitutional of which is requiring permits for concealed weapons. Permits cost money, which adversely affects lower income individuals and in some ways deters them from exercising their rights. It's like charging people to vote, assemble or pray.

The problem with restricting weapons and our ability to own and carry them on our person is that only law abiding citizens will lose rights. No matter how many laws are created, criminals will still find ways to get their hands on illegal weapons. When politicians try to restrict anything in a free market a vacuum is created and a black market is always there to fill the void.

The real reason I wanted to discuss the Second Amendment is because of the recent school shooting at Northern Illinois University. At least five students were killed and 16 others wounded in the largest school shooting since last year's Virginia Tech massacre. And so the question must be posed: If we have a right to bear arms, why is that right not recognized throughout the United States? Especially at the institutions that are supposed to educate us on and promote those very rights?

As you may well know, Virginia Tech and Northern Illinois University are gun-free zones. Not surprisingly, the only people who had guns were those who wanted to kill others. What would have happened if students were allowed to exercise their right and carry a handgun? We will never know, but it's hard to imagine that anything worse could have unfolded. This is what I mean when I say that only law-abiding citizens are adversely affected when their rights are restricted. We can't do anything to stop a Seung-Hui Cho (the Virginia Tech gunman) from opening fire at a university.

Some people say that they would not feel any safer seeing students and faculty carrying weapons around campus, that in fact they would feel less safe. Unfortunately for those people, their arguments are irrelevant. My right to carry a firearm does not depend on how safe they may or may not feel.

The Constitution and Bill of Rights must be interpreted equally. Over the years the Supreme Court has expanded our First Amendment rights. It only makes legal sense to do the same for the Second Amendment. Not even a couple of officers running around campus with Tasers could stop a determined gunman before he gets off a few rounds. I am not asking to carry a bazooka down Kincaid Street and into Knight Library. All I want is to be able to protect myself in the event that the University suffers the same fate as that of Virginia Tech and Northern Illinois University.

nantovich@dailyemerald.com

Page 1 of 1

Article Tools

Viewing Comments 1 - 10 of 15

• Read all 15 comments

Post a Comment

• Name: (required)
• Email: (required)
• NOTE: Email address will not be published
• Website:

Notify me of followup comments via e-mail

Email notify will not work because you are not currently logged in.
Click here to quickly login or create a free account.

Type your comment below (html not allowed)

  I am not posting spam. I understand posting spam or other comments that are unrelated to this article will cause my comment to be flagged for deletion and possibly cause my IP address to be permanently banned from this server.