One of the recent spate of mass shootings in the US was the fatal shooting that occurred last Saturday at a mall in Allen, Texas. Eight victims passed away.
With this kind of brutality, constitutional questions are often brought up. More than any other amendment in our Bill of Rights, the Second Amendment is likely the target of attacks.
The Second Amendment states: “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.”
Anti-gun activists are requesting tougher gun regulations in response to the most recent horrific massacre.
Here are four widespread misconceptions about gun control and the Second Amendment.
1. A “well-regulated militia” means gun regulations.
The “well-regulated militia” clause is commonly cited by opponents of firearms. They frequently think that phrase relates to gun control laws or the requirement to join a militia in order to possess weapons.
However, more research reveals that this is not the case. Simply enough, the phrase “well-regulated militia” refers to the American people.
“The militia system, with deep roots in English history, was one way of ensuring that the nation could defend itself against all threats, foreign and domestic. Instead of a large full-time professional army, the government could, when needed, call upon the greater body of armed citizens to employ their personal firearms in the collective defense of the state or nation,” as The Heritage Foundation highlighted.
“A ‘well-regulated’ militia simply meant that the processes for activating, training, and deploying the militia in official service should be efficient and orderly, and that the militia itself should be capable of competently executing battlefield operations.”
The Second Amendment defends a personal right, as the 2008 District of Columbia v. Heller decision by the Supreme Court reaffirmed. It is not necessary to be a member of a militia to exercise that privilege.
2. The right to “keep and bear arms” does not apply to modern weaponry.
The left frequently argues that since AR-15s and other “assault rifles” were not around when the Second Amendment was written and passed, we do not have the right to own them.
However, this is not very logical. It is akin to arguing that since they did not exist when the First Amendment was established, free speech rights do not apply to the Internet or other contemporary channels of communication.
The term “arms” was cleverly used by the founders since it is quite general and encompasses a wide variety of weaponry. All of the handguns and rifles we use today would be illegal if they had intended the amendment to safeguard the right to own and bear muskets.
This important distinction was emphasized by Rep. Jim Jordan during a hearing earlier this year.
.@Jim_Jordan goes off on the importance of protecting the 2nd Amendment: "The right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. Plain and simple. It doesn't say the right to keep and bear muskets shall not be infringed." pic.twitter.com/L81ytwQUkD
— YAF (@yaf) January 4, 2023
3. Gun control is the only action needed to prevent gun violence.
Advocates for gun regulation claim that in order to confront gun violence, we must “take action” or “do something”. However, their idea of action is always to impose additional gun controls on top of those already in place, which have not been able to stop these shootings.
It appears that the mall where the Texas massacre occurred was already a gun-free zone, despite calls for stricter regulations.
This demonstrates that criminals never abide by the firearms restrictions now in place, leaving law-abiding civilians defenseless as a result.
The increased gun restriction is not the solution. To enable law-abiding persons to carry a handgun and improve their chances of thwarting a prospective shooter in the first place, it is part of the solution to abolish gun-free zones.
4. Ted Cruz and Greg Abbott were responsible for the Texas mall shooting.
Unfortunately, in today’s society, gun control proponents tend to pin the blame for these violent shootings on political rivals.
Among those who were the targets of this vitriol were Texas Senator Ted Cruz and Governor Greg Abbott.
Politicians like Rep. Eric Swalwell of California have wasted no time in defaming Cruz and saying that he supports the killers rather than the victims.
— Rep. Eric Swalwell 🟧 (@RepSwalwell) May 7, 2023
One of several journalists who said Abbott had blood on his hands was Steven Beschloss.
Greg Abbott has more blood on his hands.
— Steven Beschloss (@StevenBeschloss) May 7, 2023
Supporters of the second amendment are not to blame for any shootings. The murderers themselves must bear responsibility.
We need to remove unsuccessful gun control legislation and reinstate a morally upright culture if we want to reduce gun violence.