First and foremost, it was the concern of the men who gave birth to the Constitution that the Federal Government not infringe upon the rights of the states or the individuals of the newly created country. The Constitution is set up so that no one branch may hijack the government and use it against the people. The amendments further provided safeguards against hegemony by enumerating specific rights that may not be violated by the central government. The document as a whole, Constitution and amendments, are designed to protect the American people from the government. That is its most basic function.

At no point in the Constitution or the Bill of Rights are the rights of the people restricted. Never does the document upon which this country is founded take away a right from an individual. The 9th Amendment in unusual directness states that rights not specifically ensured by the Constitution shall not be considered as a denial of those rights. It can very pointedly be argued that the 2nd Amendment addresses militias and the states and that it speaks to “people” and not “person or persons”. However, any interpretation that the 2nd amendment does not guarantee the individual the right to keep and bear arms would be to ignore the 9th amendment. This reasoning would be restricting the rights of the individual by arguing that the Constitution does not specifically enumerate that right. This argument runs counter to all that the founders hoped for. The Federal Government and the manuscript upon which it is founded may not restrict an individuals rights including the right to own a gun.

History does bear out an instance in which it the Federal Government did limit the rights of the individuals. The 18th Amendment made it illegal to sell or possess alcohol. Without going deeply into that case it must suffice to say that the people of this country, through the representatives in Washington, came to their senses and with the 21st Amendment made right that wrong. Currently there is talk of an amendment to ban gay marriages. One point alone must render this argument untenable: it would restrict the rights of the individual. No other point matters.

There are many good reasons why people should not possess guns these days. 230 years ago, when the Constitution was written, guns were a necessity of life for much of the population. They were a way to put food on the table and to protect one’s family and possessions. That is not the case today. Guns have no place in much of our society. However, arguing that a person should not have a gun is much different but not far from saying that one can not have a gun. By giving into the easy fix and allowing the Federal Government to regulate the tool that the founders intended the people to have in order to protect themselves from that government is not only stupid, it is unconstitutional. The way to quell senseless violence is not through restricting the rights of individuals but through including more and more people in the prosperity that all Americans have a right to achieve through peaceful, lawful means. Washington can start by addressing the inexcusably wretched state of public education in this country and in doing so watch the rate of violent crime in this country drop. It won’t happen overnight but it will happen in most people’s lifetime.

Thanks for signing in, . Now you can comment. (sign out)