Timothy Duhon
With the recent tragedy of the Washington Navy Yard shooting and other such events, there has been an expected escalation of rhetoric on both sides on the issue of gun control. While one may be tempted to fall into juvenile comments about someone’s sexual characteristics, this is not an effective way of expanding the discourse around whether or not owning a gun is a natural right.
The Second Amendment to the Constitution of the United States reads as follows: “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.” This statement carries the important idea of the right of the people to be protected from the government that rules them. The statement that a militia is necessary to maintain a free state is a temperament by the founders against authoritarian rule by ensuring there are real consequences to widespread government corruption and abuse.
If you look at the context in which this was written, the United States had very recently fought a war against their government for independence because they felt they were being oppressed. This amendment to the Constitution guarantees that same right to armed resistance as a way of combating authoritarian rule. Because opposition against professional armies within civil wars usually comes from militias — especially at the time of the writing of the Constitution — and militias usually provide their own weapons, the right of the people to own weapons was an important right to maintain. For if the government didn’t guarantee that it would not infringe upon that right, there would be great potential for misuse of government power.
This is not saying that I don’t think that gun violence is a serious issue, because I do. However, I believe that the solution to this issue cannot reside in the outlawing of private ownership of weapons. Any real change would have to involve a societal shift about the acceptability of violence by perhaps focusing on proper gun use and safety, or more education about the prevention of needless violence through discourse and compromise. Or perhaps even a movement to revamp our mental healthcare system, which much of the time is inadequate in its treatment methods. These recent tragedies have been a result of severely unstable individuals that probably should have been receiving intense mental health treatment. A solution of that manner would solve our problem as well without creating a danger of a society that cannot oppose those that would wish to infringe upon natural rights.
Now, while I’m not calling for armed rebellions (in no way am I doing that, by the way), I consider the right to oppose an unjust ruling system to be a basic human right, and while it is unfortunate that violence is necessary to do that, it is sometimes necessary. While this may not be an immediate issue, nor even one that will arise in our lifetimes, this right must be preserved because of the possible future ramifications. Because when you look at the recent police brutality in Brazil, the government censorship in China, the suppression of human rights and free speech in Russia, the intrusion of the intelligence agencies into private communications and, perhaps most vividly, the use of chemical weapons upon Syrian citizens, the danger of having an unarmed populace might seem a little more dangerous than the dangers associated with having an armed one.
Timothy Duhon is a Staff Writer for the Voice and can be reached for comment at TDuhon15@wooster.edu