Читать книгу Keeping the Republic - Christine Barbour - Страница 155

During the earliest days of American independence, the chief source of national stability was the state militia system—armies of able-bodied men who could be counted on to assemble, with their own guns, to defend their country from external and internal threats, whether from the British, Native Americans, or local insurrection. Local militias were seen as far less dangerous to the fledgling republic than a standing army under national leadership. Such an army could seize control and create a military dictatorship, depriving citizens of their hard-won rights.

The restructuring of the U.S. military, and the growing evidence that under civilian control it did not pose a threat to the liberties of American citizens, caused many people to view the Second Amendment as obsolete. Although the militia system that gave rise to the amendment is now defunct, supporters of rights for gun owners, such as the National Rifle Association (NRA), argue that the amendment is as relevant as ever. They offer at least four reasons the right to bear arms should be unregulated. First, they argue that hunting and other leisure activities involving guns do not hurt anybody (except, of course, the hunted) and are an important part of American culture. Second, gun rights advocates claim that possession of guns is necessary for self-defense. Their third argument is that citizens should have the right to arm themselves to protect their families and property from a potentially tyrannical government. Finally, advocates of unregulated gun ownership say that it is not government’s business to regulate gun use.

Opponents of these views, such as Handgun Control, Inc., and the Coalition to Stop Gun Violence, counter with several arguments of their own. First, they say that none of the claims of gun rights advocates has anything to do with the Second Amendment, which refers only to the use and ownership of guns by state militia members. Their second argument is that countries with stricter gun control laws have less violence and fewer gun deaths. Third, they argue that none of the rights of Americans, even such fundamental ones as freedom of speech and the press, is absolute. Finally, they point to the irony in claiming the protection of the Constitution to own weapons that could be used to overthrow the government based on that Constitution.⁶¹