The first ten amendments to the United States Constitution are known as the Bill of Rights.
The purpose of the Bill of Rights is to protect certain rights that our founding fathers thought necessary. Time after time, we have seen the Supreme Court selectively incorporate these amendments into state and local governments. And we would probably agree that no government should deny our freedom of speech — guaranteed by the first amendment — or our right to a free trial as promised by the sixth amendment. What about our second amendment rights in the United States?
The Supreme Court heard oral arguments Tuesday concerning the incorporation of second amendment rights to state and local governments in McDonald versus Chicago. Before half of you put the paper down because you are sick of hearing about conservative, pro-NRA arguments, let’s look at who is involved in the case. Otis McDonald is a 76-year-old African-American male who is a registered Democrat. He is retired from the Army and was actively involved in civil rights and union organization. What does this man need a handgun for?
The answer: protection.
Chicago has banned handguns within its city limits. The problem with this ban is that you take guns out of the hands of citizens who follow the law accordingly; but gang member and thugs, on the other hand, do not do the same. If you think that a gun ban stops gun violence, then you obviously live in candy land where it rains gumdrops. There is a difference between allowing citizens to have fully automatic AK-47s and giving them the right to protect themselves. It’s ignorant to think that there should be no regulation on gun ownership; there should definitely be certain restrictions. You can’t, however, deny people the right to defend themselves.
Otis McDonald’s neighborhood has been overrun with drug and gang related violence. He has worked hard to make a good life for his family, but he cannot even feel safe in his own home that has been broken into three times. In Thomas Hobbes’ “Leviathan,” he suggests that what people value most is security. Security allows citizens to be happy and focus on bettering their lives. John Plattenberger, junior in political science and gun owner said, “Until the government can guarantee absolute protection and safety to each individual, United States citizens should be allowed to possess guns.”
The founding fathers wanted to empower United States citizens to protect themselves; otherwise, the Bill of Rights would not exist.
This case is going to set an important precedent for gun ownership in the future. In the next 5 to 10 years, most students will hope to establish themselves in the real world. We will buy houses and acquire property. We will have husbands, wives and children. Some of us will feel safer by owning and possessing handguns because the world is what it is. As North Carolinians, and Americans, we have that right.
Every United States citizen — barring felons — who takes the time to learn and understand the responsibilities involved in gun ownership should have the chance to do that no matter which state they live in. You can try to ban everyone from owning a gun, but let’s be honest those who use them for crimes will always find a way to have them. We can only hope the Supreme Court does what is right and gives Otis his constitutional right to protect himself.
