Interpretation: Gun Control and the Second Amendment

The second amendment of the United States constitution states that "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." For decades, the exact meaning of this amendment has been debated by congress, the senate, and citizens of the United States. The interpretation of the second amendment is perhaps the most important issue in the ongoing debate over whether or not gun control laws should remain, and if so to what extent.

Two articles, one written by a man named David B. Kopel and the other written by members of the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence, have opposing views on gun control and approach the issue in two different ways. In his article entitled "Trust the People: the Case Against Gun Control," Kopel argues against gun control using various facts and observances as well as explaining both original and modern-day interpretations of the constitution. The Brady Campaign, in their article "The Second Amendment," presents an argument favoring gun control based solely on their interpretation of the second amendment. While they both present valid arguments, Kopel makes a more persuasive argument by not only using his own interpretation of the constitution but by also using researched facts and observations to defend his position.

In his article Kopel makes several convincing points about guns in America. He explains that tighter gun laws would not necessarily mean less crime, using Switzerland as an example. In Switzerland, all adult males without a criminal record or mental illness are required to learn how to operate and store a gun. Despite this, Switzerland has virtually no gun crime.

Kopel also defends the use of guns on the basis that they are useful in both personal and professional crime prevention. He elaborates on this point by stating that guns are required for the police to uphold the law in America for obvious reasons and suggesting that guns can also be used by ordinary civilians to protect themselves from home invaders or assailants. According to Kopel, after the city of Orlando Florida trained 2,500 women in firearm use in response to a rape epidemic, rape fell by 88 percent the following year. In addition to this, Kopel also points out that despite America's current gun control laws, felons are still getting their hands on firearms and using them. Kopel makes this observation in order to demonstrate that criminals who intend to use guns for criminal activity would likely find a way to obtain them no matter what kind of gun laws are in effect.

In addition to this, Kopel defends the people's right to bear arms on the basis of both what he believes to be the original purpose of the constitution as well as a modern day interpretation. According to Kopel, when the founding fathers wrote the second amendment to the United States constitution, they intended it to, along with the Militia Act of 1792, require every able-bodied adult male to bear firearms in order to maintain a well-regulated militia and preserve the security of the nation. As for the modern interpretation, Kopel states that although the requirement to keep firearms no longer exists, the definition of a militia remains the same. According to Kopel, section 311 of the United States code declares "The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and . . . under 45 years of age." Therefore, despite the fact that many argue that a militia is no longer required, the original intent of the second amendment still stands.

The Brady campaign holds a different view of the meaning of the second amendment, which they use to argue in favor of gun control. The Brady Campaign argues that the definition of a militia has changed and that the original intent of the second amendment no longer applies. According to the campaign, the militia of the 18th century refers to a military force of ordinary citizens which were generally viewed as a counterbalance to the federal army. However, the Brady Campaign defines today's equivalent of a well-regulated militia as the National Guard, an organization which has limited membership and has weapons provided for them. Therefore, according to the campaign, there is no need for ordinary citizens to carry weapons nor do they have the right to because the second amendment calls for citizens to bear arms only to maintain a well-regulated militia.

Both articles use the second amendment in order to defend their respective positions, however, Kopel's article is the stronger of the two for several reasons. Kopel argues his position using additional facts and statistic as well as using constitutional interpretation. He follows his statements about gun control with examples that support those statements. For example, the statement he makes about how guns can be used as tools against crime rather than as instruments of crime is followed by the example of how women being trained to use guns in Florida resulted in a huge decrease in the amount of rapes that took place during the following year.

Another reason Kopel's article is more convincing than the article written by the Brady campaign is that his modern-day interpretation of the constitution is based on a government documented definition of a militia, rather than being based solely on his opinion. The Brady Campaign provided no information as to where they obtained there modern definition of a militia which would lead one to believe the definition was simply based on their personal opinions on the matter. Lastly, the Brady Campaign's entire purpose is to tighten gun control laws so its members are obviously biased on the topic; whereas Kopel is simply an attorney from Colorado writing his opinion on the matter, making his article less biased. For these reasons, Kopel's article is stronger than the Brady Campaign's article and therefore more likely to convince readers on his opinion on gun control laws in America.

The differences between the two articles show just how different interpretations or "acceptable translations" of the same source can be. This difference of interpretation of such a short simple document could be caused by a number of reasons such as the interpreter's personal feelings, background, or prior knowledge on the subject. Therefore, it is not likely everyone will share the same interpretation on the second amendment or anything else for that matter. For this reason, gun control and the second amendment will probably be a highly debated issue for many years to come.