Guns are essential to self-defense
Nathan Christopher
Issue date: 6/30/08 Section: Opinions
The ability to defend one's self against an enemy has largely changed over the past few centuries. To think that at one time men fought with swords, an honorable weapon in which great skill is required to master its use is almost unfathomable. Today, men do not fight with swords, but with guns - a weapon that is intentionally crafted to be as simple as possible so that even the most novice user may fire it.
The U.S. Supreme Court's decision to overturn a 32-year-old Washington, D.C. sweeping ban on firearms was the ideal way to end their spring session. The decision was close and a strictly partisan one at that. Justice Anthony Kennedy leaned to his more conservative side and provided the necessary swing-vote.
This was a controversial case to say the least, considering it was the first time that the Second Amendment had been conclusively interpreted since it was written in 1791. The amendment itself is not exactly that crystal clear in its implication. It states, "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."
What does this mean? I believe it means that even though there is an official protective force, whether it is the branches of the military or the local police, an individual should always have the right to protect themselves from personal harm. That's not to say I am a NRA card carrying gun-nut either, because I absolutely believe in gun restrictions, just not a gun ban. This is why the Supreme Court's decision made so much sense to me. As Paul Helmke of the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence stated, "It's clear what the court did today is, they limited the extremes."
Indeed, the Court took away the ability of local lawmakers to impose sweeping bans on firearms, but at the opposite end of the spectrum, left intact the restrictions, such as requiring firearms to be registered and performing background checks. This decision was a great compromise in what turned out to be a very heated debate. Residents in Washington along with many other large cities now get to purchase firearms to protect their home.
The U.S. Supreme Court's decision to overturn a 32-year-old Washington, D.C. sweeping ban on firearms was the ideal way to end their spring session. The decision was close and a strictly partisan one at that. Justice Anthony Kennedy leaned to his more conservative side and provided the necessary swing-vote.
This was a controversial case to say the least, considering it was the first time that the Second Amendment had been conclusively interpreted since it was written in 1791. The amendment itself is not exactly that crystal clear in its implication. It states, "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."
What does this mean? I believe it means that even though there is an official protective force, whether it is the branches of the military or the local police, an individual should always have the right to protect themselves from personal harm. That's not to say I am a NRA card carrying gun-nut either, because I absolutely believe in gun restrictions, just not a gun ban. This is why the Supreme Court's decision made so much sense to me. As Paul Helmke of the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence stated, "It's clear what the court did today is, they limited the extremes."
Indeed, the Court took away the ability of local lawmakers to impose sweeping bans on firearms, but at the opposite end of the spectrum, left intact the restrictions, such as requiring firearms to be registered and performing background checks. This decision was a great compromise in what turned out to be a very heated debate. Residents in Washington along with many other large cities now get to purchase firearms to protect their home.