Sticking to Our Guns
By: Nick Hess
“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 past weekend the College Republicans celebrated 2nd Amendment Day. We learned about gun safety and tried our hand at target shooting. The M16 was really cool. More importantly, however, we learned why the 2nd Amendment is so important and why it specifically protects an INDIVIDUAL right to bear arms. Now, I have to be honest: this event was not an official College Republicans event because Lehigh University would not sanction it. We therefore were not allowed to use any club funds for the event. Apparently, certain administrators did not think this activity was in keeping with the standards of this fine institution. I was amazed to hear that learning to exercise one’s Constitutional right safely and responsibly could pose such a problem. We can offer free HIV tests at the Health Center, but a gun safety course and target shooting? Now that is out of line. I actually thought colleges were supposed to foster a productive and open learning environment. Imagine my shock when I found out that only applies to liberal, hippie ideals such as promiscuous sex and drinking. Of course, with the drug-using, Summer of Love crowd from the 1960s now running our institutions of higher learning, I should have expected this. Here is why the 2nd Amendment is so important and why the Lehigh administration was so close-minded in his denial of this activity.
Just like the 1st Amendment, the 2nd Amendment did not grant a right. This Amendment simply preserved a right that already existed. That right is the right of each person in the United States to bear arms in order to defend him or herself. The framers of our Constitution clearly intended the 2nd Amendment to apply to the individual, not a militia or such. James Madison said: “[The Constitution preserves] the advantage of being armed which Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation…(where) the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms.” Thomas Jefferson stated, “No freeman shall ever be debarred the use of arms.” In fact, the Supreme Court has reaffirmed the individual’s right to bear arms as an individual right multiple times. Out of the 23 state constitutions adopted before 1845, 20 of them explicitly affirm the individual’s right to bear arms. The other three mention a “collective right.” James Madison, considered to be the author of the Bill of Rights, wrote that the Bill of Rights was “calculated to secure the personal rights of the people.” The framers clearly wanted an individual right.
Another point of contention with the 2nd Amendment is that the Amendment applies to the National Guard, not the individual citizen. The first and most obvious counter to this argument is that the National Guard was not formed until a hundred years after the 2nd Amendment was written. Unless our Founding Fathers had better foresight than we even give them credit for, they would not have written an amendment for something that did not yet exist. The more concrete reason why this argument is bogus comes from the Dick Act in 1903. The Dick Act specified that the National Guard is the “organized militia” and that all other citizens are the “unorganized militia.” Therefore, by federal law, all members of the population are part of the militia, thus giving each citizen the individual right to bear arms. Also, the National Guard was not part of the militia at all before 1903. Clearly the 2nd Amendment does not apply to the National Guard.
The next reason the Amendment supports an individual right comes from the text of the 2nd Amendment itself. If you look at the text, the Amendment has two separate clauses in it. The first clause is “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free state.” This is the justification clause, that is, it tells us why the Amendment is there. The Founding Fathers recognized that the armed citizen was necessary to maintain a free society, and told us so in this Amendment. The second clause: “the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” This is the preservation clause. It guarantees the right based on the justification clause. I ask: would we be able to deny free speech based on the justification for the right?
Next, let us address the issue of assault weapons. Assault weapons are, aside from not being dangerous to the general public, essential in keeping the people free. First, the 1994 assault weapons ban did not reduce crime at all. The ban failed to reduce homicides and only reduced homicides by “assault weapons” a very small amount. Criminals were just using other weapons to commit their crimes. That begs the question: shouldn’t we ban the other guns they are using? I would counter with this: After we ban those guns, shouldn’t we ban the Louisville Slugger they might use after that or the steak knife which would be the next weapon of choice? Charles Krauthammer said it best: “Passing a law like the assault weapons ban is a symbolic, purely symbolic move… Its only real justification is not to reduce crime but to desensitize the public to the regulation of weapons in preparation for their ultimate confiscation.” Criminals will not surrender their assault weapons, guns, baseball bats, or knives, so when you take guns from the public who does that benefit? Assault weapons are also needed for legitimate purposes. During the Rodney King riots in Los Angeles, many storeowners protected their property and families with so-called “assault weapons.” Those shop owners were the ones who did not get robbed or dragged into the streets and beaten. The police had vacated that part of town; there was no one else there to protect the innocent but the innocent themselves. When civilization breaks down, the only defense we have is that which we can provide ourselves. Adequate weaponry is essential to providing that defense. What if the Jews back in Germany had had weapons for their defense? Can you think of a better way to get the Gestapo off your doorstep than an M16?
The bottom line is that the 2nd Amendment is the right that preserves all the others. Once the people are disarmed, it would not be very hard to take away any other right guaranteed by our Constitution. Freedom of speech cannot be defended without the Right to Bear Arms. Those that would deny or limit the 2nd Amendment are not only violating the Constitution, they are acting with extreme irresponsibility and putting all our other freedoms in jeopardy. To try to deny a group of adults the opportunity to learn how to use these weapons responsibly and effectively is incredibly shortsighted and downright stupid. To try to deny college students the opportunity to learn about the history and significance of the 2nd Amendment is corrupt. Someone who would try this has no business at an institution of higher learning. The Lehigh College Republicans would like to offer their sincere thanks to Bob Bajor and the Easton Fish and Game Club for giving us an education Lehigh tried to prevent.
