The Antelope Valley Times

Your community. Your issues. Your news.

Our right to bear arms

by •

Right to bear arms student editorial

By: HARLEY MACHI
English 11; Lancaster High School
Teacher: A. Dickey

I believe the government is slowly taking away our right to bear arms, even though it is included in one of the first 10 amendments in the Bill of Rights. The law giving us the right to bear arms was passed by the Congress on September 25, 1789 and ratified on December 15, 1791. This right of ours should not be taken away from us. These rights are important to protect us and protect our country.

I read that although gun controls differ from state to state, the courts have permitted the government to limit some rights of gun manufacturers, owners and sellers. I guess it’s confusing because we don’t know whether the right to use and buy guns belongs to individuals or only to a militia.

Obviously, most people say that we have the right to bear arms, yet they don’t see the thin line between ‘yes, we have it’ and “no, we don’t have it.” It’s confusing because there are so many reckless people and unjust laws that make it controversial. On one hand, the state should recognize our right to bear arms because, in so many ways, guns are our protection. On the other hand, people should be responsible enough to prove to the state that we do not abuse the right to bear arms so that the state will not take that right from us.

According to Linda Monk in her write-up “The Words We Live By”:

“The American Revolution was fought by minutemen, ready with their guns at a moments notice. Early Americans believed that a militia, composed of citizen-soldiers, was a better safeguard of their liberties than a standing or permanent army.”

(Annotated Guide to the Constitution, 2003)

I think the government should be rational and leave our rights for us to enjoy. They should adhere to the constitution and not be the first to break it. As to our right to bear arms, guns are to be used for our protection from robbers, thieves, thugs, criminals and dangers of all sorts. Sometimes, I think that our government is being corrupt, especially when they try to limit our rights and freedom.

I understand that in the past some people used guns for the wrong reasons. Nowadays, we know better. I admit that some people are reckless, but not all of us are like them. Most of us are responsible. The government should not act like we are animals, that they can snap their fingers and tell us to do what they want us to do even though its violating our rights.

Our ancestors and the founders of this land fought hard for us to have our rights. I don’t think it’s fair to take away the rights that set the foundation of our state. If that’s the case, then this country is really not worth coming to.

–

This article is part of Youth Speak Out, a new section in The AV Times featuring editorials by participating Lancaster High School students. Read more about this initiative here.

Filed Under: YOUTH SPEAK OUT

42 comments for "Our right to bear arms"

  2. The second amendment wasn’t written to protect us from robbers and thieves… It was solely written to protect us from a tyrannical government… Which is what is about to be needed, being that our government is full of liberal retards who think that we would be better off letting the government make decisions for us…

    • Do you really think that a well-armed private citizen stands a chance against the United States military if it were to come to that?

      • Here is some information about America’s Largest Army, America’s Hunters:
        America’s Hunters are the world’s largest army!
        A blogger added up the deer license sales in just a handful of states and arrived at a striking conclusion:
        There were over 600,000 hunters this season in the state of Wisconsin.
        Over the last several months, Wisconsin’s hunters became the eighth largest army in the world, with more men under arms than in Iran and more than France and Germany combined.
        These men deployed to the woods of a single American state, Wisconsin, to hunt with firearms, and no one was killed.
        That number pales in comparison to the 750,000 who hunted the woods of Pennsylvania and Michigan’s 700,000 hunters, all of whom have now returned home safely. Toss in a quarter million hunters in West Virginia and it literally establishes the fact that the hunters of those four states alone would comprise the largest army in the world. And then add in the total number of hunters in the other 46 states. It’s millions more.

        Yes Will, we do.

        • Many states allow for out of state hunters to come in during season. So the numbers skew just a bit. Still a sizable crowd.

          Also have to remember some of the hunters are military members, law enforcement and other government types.

          Your statement still stands about the numbers. Problem is weapon types. The military has automatic and large area impact weapons. Normal citizens do not, especially the law abiding types.

          • Remember he started by only counting deer licenses. A lot more gun owners out there and where I live a lot have autos also.

      • Considering uneducated and primitive Afghanistan cavemen have given our military a ton of [removed] for over a decade…. yes, yes we could. Do you have any idea how many ex-military are in the civilian ranks? 10x more than our current military numbers, they are severely outnumbered, every 4 years our military boys churn back into civilian life. And do you know what all these veterans now living the civilian life learned while in the military? They learned all about insurgency, IEd bombs, all of that which was used against us over seas. They got a first row seat in that class due to the war. If the government ever became tyrannical they would have to face all of these veterans that now specialize in insurgency warfare, it wouldnt be pretty. The government would literally have to start killing civilians left and right in order to win, bomb cities and shit.

      • @William
        Yes, because we have discharged large number of combat vets who have been in combat regions where, small unit tactics & strategies plus IED were used effectively. Our Vets also know how these systems worked and will also know how to use counter measures from our national forces. National Guard armories would be targeted as well as LEO station/division and small LEO departments in a worst case scenario. Guerrilla warfare is what is called and it has work in the pass. Viet Cong, Partisan forces, Free French, Rogers Rangers were small cell operational units some in a coordinated effort while not always.
        It is one the reasons that President Clinton back slow down on some his gun control agenda , those known militia groups were not the problem, it was those unknown cell groups that is the problem.

        http://www.history.com/search?q=guerrilla%20warfare

  3. I applaud Harley for being engaged with current events and our government. If only more of our youth would do the same.

    • It’s an English class and she begins her essay with ““I believe the government is slowly taking away our right to bear arms,…”

      Where does she provide any evidence of that in the essay? Doesn’t matter what the topic is, to begin with “I believe such and such….” and not provide any back up references doesn’t make for a good essay.

      Her statement sounds like she does use a gun but is confused abou the law regarding guns.

  4. William….I would suggest that you critique your own comments, which is filled with misinformation, before you critique an essay by Harley Machi.

    • @critique

      I suggest you critique your own coments and perhaps you might want to include an example of misinformation.

      Otherwise, your comment is just useless typing.

  7. What a mess of an article.

    So, maybe we should dispense with our atanding army and intead have a citizen militia fight all the wars. (from the quote)

    “The government should not act like we are animals,…” Where did that nonsensical notion come from.

    And, where does ‘A well-regulated…” enter into the discussion for the writer. The first 3 words of the 2nd Amendment are typically ignored by the pro-gun advocates.

    If they want to take the 2nd Amendment seriously, the word ‘arms’ isn’t limited to guns. Arms are weapons; so why not missile launchers, bombs, grenades and even nuclear devices being included in the ‘right to bear arms’? It’s right there in the 2nd Amendment. Why isn’t the writer complaining that the government took away his right to have nuclear tipped missiles in his garage?

    You can’t claim the ‘right to bear arms’ as absolute and then limit the definition of ‘arms’ at the same time. Talk about manipulating the language of the 2nd Amendment to suit oneself.

    ” in so many ways, guns are our protection.” Really? Tell that to the 2 New York City cops who were shot and killed in their patrol car. They were armed as were the 2 cops in a Las Vegas restaurant who were also armed when they were assassinated by a couple of nuts fresh from the Bundy ranch.

    But, by now it’s hopeless. The NRA and gun manufacturers have kept the government from regulating gun ownership more rigorously for so many years while the market was flooded with guns, almost as many as there are people in this country. Predictably, there are guns available to anyone, even those that shouldn’t have them. So, the pro-gun advocates now say we need guns to protect ourselves from people who the pro-gun people refused to have go through background checks in a self-fulfilling action.

    Something like 80-90% of Americans want universal background checks but that went nowhere in Congress. Why?

    • You do realize background checks are required for any purchase made from an FFL dealer and in multiple states for private purchases? The people that shouldn’t have them don’t buy them legally for the most part and in the instances they do, they lie on the form and the system doesn’t work. Case in point is James Holmes in Colorado, under the care of psychiatrists, made multiple threats and was never reported due to a gray area in HIPPA laws, lied on form 4473 and was able to buy a gun. Had nothing to do with the NRA or gun manufacturers refusing to have him go through a back ground check. Same deal with the Virginia Tech shooter. If that end of the system doesn’t work, there are going to be issues.

    • First of all, William, we do have a citizen militia. It is also called an army. Since conscription was ended in 1973 they are fully volunteer. But that is neither here nor there. Oh, and I have the right to bear arms, meaning I should have the right to have any and all arms, including nuclear weapons. However, I also have the responsibility for it’s proper use. I should be 100% responsible for whatever happens if the arm is used. This is purely rhetorical, especially since I do not use a gun at all.

      To the writer, Harley, your essay is well done, and you present many different ideas. The biggest problem I see with it is that it lacks cohesiveness. You start your essay with an argument of losing our right to bear arms. That is where you need to focus your essay. First, define your argument (We are losing our right to bear arms), then present proof that your argument is correct.
      Being in 11th grade, you are coming close to attending college (AVC has excellent English teachers) and if you are considering a career in journalism or law then you will know that writing skills are important to success in these paths. I recommend you read many good essays which your teacher can likely recommend.

      • I was referring to the author’s quote from Linda Monk.

        “Early Americans believed that a militia, composed of citizen-soldiers, was a better safeguard of their liberties than a standing or permanent army.”

        If she uses the word ‘than’ to show a difference between ‘a militia, composed of citizen-soldiers’ and ‘a standing or permanent army’, why are you playing with the words?

        Are you sure you have the right to have nuclear weapons?
        ” The biggest problem I see with it is that it lacks cohesiveness.”

        Her use of the word ‘animals’ is a misfire.

        For the 3rd time “It’s hopeless”. There are almost as many guns as people in this country and next year there will be more. The more guns, the more likelyhood that people that shouldn’t have guns will have them because the NRA has kept our government at bay regarding strict regulations for lethal weapons.

        No one is taking away the right to bear arms yet the author begins with that in her first sentence.

        “I believe the government is slowly taking away our right to bear arms,…”

        Yet, she doesn’t back that up with any specific examples in the essay.

        The essay could be on any topic and those things I pointed as would apply as well. It’s doesn’t have to be about about guns to be a poorly written essay.

        • Hi William, you are correct about the militia versus standing army. The standing army is under control of the government whereas the militia is to help if we get invaded or our standing army is used against us (with heavy losses for the militia of course since they are restricted by the government through laws about the types of weapons allowed).
          The NRA is not really the problem you think it is. The law and the interpretation of that law is. The justices of the Supreme Court argue over this issue on a fairly regular basis. To remove the 2nd Amendment it would have to be put to a States vote which is unlikely to ever happen with an outcome of all States voting to remove it. So that leaves the government with the task of trying to weasel around it constantly through restrictions put in place and then argued by the Supreme Court and the cycle goes round again.
          As to being allowed weapons of any type. Go for it, but expect a heavy knock on the door from the overwhelming standing army.

          • Well, then if there is a knock on the door, it doesn’t really mean I have a ‘right to bear’ arm’ if those arms aren’t allowed, is there?

            Of course, arguing for the right bear bear any and all arms would be counter-productive as it would invite the courts to start limiting which kind.

  8. In most civilized neighborhoods there is no need for guns… but now in the AV, lol, well that’s a different story. Just saying.

    • It is not about ‘need for’ it is a right of being human to have the arms to protect oneself. In civilized neighborhoods gun ownership is more about the fun aspect of going shooting/plinking. Then there are those rare people that still hunt for food.

  10. There are some fundamental problems with Machi’s statements.

    “I believe the government is slowly taking away our right to bear arms”
    Although everyone’s opinion is protected by the Constitution, starting the essay off with this sentence sets the tone for the entire piece. Guns good, government bad.

    “I understand that in the past some people used guns for the wrong reasons. Nowadays, we know better.”
    So nowadays only good guys have guns? Then why are we needing guns to protect ourselves from “robbers, thieves, thugs, criminals and dangers of all sorts.”?

    And at the end of the essay we come to the crux of of the problem.

    “Sometimes, I think that our government is being corrupt, especially when they try to limit our rights and freedom.”

    Regulations, including registering and limitations on automatic weapons, are not limits to “our rights and freedoms.”
    They are taking away our guns! runs strong in young Machi. The NRA will be proud.

    • I don’t know if we “know better” nowadays or not…but there is one thing I do know! If you make something illegal, the only people who will have it are the criminals!

    • While you are correct that there are problems with her essay, her point still stands. People say that they are taking our guns because slowly that is what’s happening. Feinstein herself has said that if she could take away guns, she would. You had the state of Illinois try to squeeze a bill through that would have banned all semiautomatic weapons, pistols and shotguns included.

      Look at what politicians have done here. Banned certain weapons based on cosmetics while allowing others that are capable of the same destruction. Now you have several manufacturers who are allowing their weapons to drop off the allowed roster because of all the hoops and money they have to fork out to the state. The microstamping bill is a complete joke and, like most other gun laws, only handcuff the law abiding citizens while doing nothing to prevent gun crime.

      And when criminals are caught with with stolen guns or using them in a crime, they are allowed to plea down and face little consequences for their actions outside of murder. Yet lawmakers keep adding more laws that do nothing.

      • Like I wrote, “It’s hopeless”.

        There will be more guns in this country next year and more the year after. So, the nonsense about “taking our guns away” is just that.

        • You’re right, banning certain types of guns is nonsense and not taking guns away. Just like the microstamping law forcing manufacturers to drop weapons off the allowed roster due to technology that is so easily defeated it makes you wonder how these assembly members think. There’s so many issues with the law that defeat the purpose of the law that the only outcome is the law abiding citizens of California are deprived of owning weapons.

      • Well said, Jason.

        But does registering truly remove our right to bear arms. And does requiring classes to use and maintain their arms properly diminish their right. I ask not to be argumentative but I would truly like to discuss what limits the government should have when it comes to our right.

        Much like the right to free speech does allow me to shout fire in a theater but also holds me responsible when people are trampled to death for inciting a riot, shouldn’t the right to bear arms allow me to hold military grade automatic weapons but hold me responsible for any injuries or damage they cause?

        • Registering them doesn’t take away the rights to bear arms until it’s used to take firearms under false pretenses or misunderstanding. There was a case here in California where a woman who went to the hospital voluntarily because medication was causing her to cry uncontrollably. She was listed as involuntary admitted and listed as a possible suicidal risk. No investigation was done until after her husbands firearms were taken from based on a nurse screwing up. As far as classes go, I think they are a good thing for those who don’t have any experience. I recommend that people looking to buy a firearm for the first time take a class.

          As a firearm owner if you use you gun negligently, you are held responsible. And people that do legally own military grade automatic weapons are among the most responsible firearms owners there are. The hoops they have to jump through for that right is the strictest there is.