A Deadly Weapon

Amendment II (1791)
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.

I may be a liberal, bleeding heart sap who wants the government to interfere with every aspect of a citizens day-to-day life (note the sarcasm please), but for the life of me I do not see how the Second Amendment grants the citizens of the United States the right to own and use guns.

“It’s right there! Clear as DAY!”, members of the NRA may claim. “Don’t you see it? : The right to bear ARMS!”

Well, yes. I DO see that. But my gap in understanding comes from seeing where arms translates to guns. That…my liberal brain just can’t wrap around. But…if arms are a synonym for guns, I would expect to find that in the dictionary…right?

I’ll start with the Cambridge International Dictionary…
Arms: weapons and equipment used to kill and injure people.
Hm. No mention of guns there.

Let’s try good old Webster’s…
Arms: Weapons of offense, or armor for defense and protection of the body
Nope…no guns there either.

Let’s go to Cambridge’s Dictionary of AMERICAN English. That should help…
Arms: to provide (yourself or others) with a weapon or weapons
WOW! Still no mention of guns. How…interesting.
So, according to standard dictionaries, the idea of arms = guns is a false one.

Now… I talked about this before, and I got a note that said something along the lines of “I’ll give up my gun when you give up your right to free speech”. I have already given up PART of my right to free speech. How so, you ask? Simple. It’s called slander and libel. If all speech was truly FREE, I would be able to say anything about anybody, whenever and in whatever forum I pleased, and the government couldn’t do a thing about it. Free Speech you know. Why is that ‘type’ of free speech prohibited? To protect American citizens. Speech is a many faceted thing, and it has been expanded to mean much more than just an utterance of the tongue.
In the same manner, arms are a many faceted thing, and it includes much more than just guns. I won’t insult anyone’s intelligence (this time) by listing all of the objects that are arms according to the above list. In fact, according to the above list, there are very few things that are NOT arms. So why I ask, cannot guns be eliminated from the list of legal arms that the Second Amendment has given me the right to bear, just as slander and libel have been eliminated from the types of speech that are free for me to utter?

Obviously, the amending of an amendment is something that has occurred before, usually after a long drawn out legal battle. But there is an amendment that has been amended repeatedly, without the benefit of a battle, or even a court decision. Which one you ask? Take a look at this:

Amendment VIII (1791)
Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.

How has this been amended? By the simple march of time and reasonability. In 1890 charging someone a quarter of a million dollars in bail would be considered excessive in the utmost. Now, it is a common bail to be charged for high profile cases where there is a chance of flight. Why? Because times have changed, and so the Constitution must change in order to remain a living document. In the same way, in regard to guns, times have changed. In the 1800’s guns were a necessity of life. To feed your family, to guard your home, to defend yourself. In the 2000’s in most areas (warning! Generalities to follow) you do not HAVE to hunt to feed your family. You do not HAVE to patrol your land to scare off the Indians the land was stolen from. You don’t HAVE to have a gun to defend yourself. In a time when almost every time the news is turned on, there is another child killed by a gun, another madman who snapped and killed tens of people for no reason, it seems that in order to continue to protect its citizens, the United States needs to take a firmer stance on guns.

I’m not a lawyer. I am not a judge. Hell, I have only been able to legally vote for five years. But there are some paths of logic that seem almost too obvious to be denied, to clear to be fogged by fancy words and demands of ‘freedom’. I welcome any holes that can be poked into this path of logic. I welcome any ideas that can be brought up to refute the wisdom of these thoughts. Of course, one obvious hole is “How can it be done? The government hasn’t been able to truly prevent any other illegal substance from entering the country, what makes guns any different?” or this one “If guns are outlawed, then the only people who will have them are the criminals.” Honestly, I don’t know. But I would hope that for the sake of our citizens, and for the protection of this country, somebody comes up with an answer that will usher in a time where the concept of a bullet wound is as foreign to our children as the concept of a 200.00 bail for a mass murderer is foreign to their parents.

Stay Jazzed.

P.S. Or maybe we should keep guns legal, and just ban bullets.